our community? we do politics in a different way. we stand up for what is right and on her authority when we are doing it. the whole world will look at us and say, why do you do that? he gives us the opportunity to present truth. we are not consumed with being the angriest. we are consumed with being right and doing god's work god's way. at times i believe we pray for revival because it sounds so much easier than doing the work. you know what we can do? let's lean in. let's do the work. there is much to be done in our nation and the church should leave. i have a job. job tobeen giving the the state of oklahoma and i will give it all i've got because there is a lot to get done. we together have a lot to do. god bless you all. ] pplause

>> ladies and gentlemen, please help me welcome the national direct their of the freedom >> are youill stop encouraged? are you feeling it? you understand now why we pulled and invited people to participate, at least for me, incredibly encouraging to hear and see and feel and reach out and touched the actual people who carry the very burdens that we ourselves carry and our own hearts and minds. so thank you for those remarks. making it happen. as the senator just told us. it is a different animal. it is a different skill set. we want quick results. we want fast, urgent, immediate results. he know what? sometimes the long-term results take a longer game.

a longer perspective they had just one congressional cycle. one is election cycle. next presentation is going to come from a gentleman that understands that intrinsically. the united states senate is a complicated body. the personalities involved are sometimes elaborate personalities. the rules themselves are nuanced and intricate. the policy is what we talk about all day every day. welcome theasure to senate majority leader who not only understands the values and principles that make us who we are, but he also understands the process to make things happen. we placed on me in welcoming the leader of the senate majority, which mcconnell. -- mitch mcconnell.

] pplause mcconnell: we had the opportunity to hear from two of our finest, senator purdue and sen. lankford:. i am pleased to be here. when the american people elected in 2014, they called for the senate to get back to work as james pointed out. the previous majority did not do much. 15 roll calls on amendments and in entire year. they won an and and to democratic dysfunction and new it was time to go into a new direction and that is what we have done since taking office in january of 2015. we passed the most important k-12 reform in more they m&a a decade. parents and kids first. it gets rid, let repeat that, it

gets rid of no child left hind and its one-size-fits-all mandate. washington from imposing common core. [applause] mitch mcconnell: you are amazed that president obama signed it, right? he did not have a choice. been described as the largest evolution and a quarter century. we passed the most important long-term transportation reform in two decades. nation'sds our highways and crumbling infrastructure, reduces waste, gives communities more control over how funding is spent and it does not raise taxes by one penny. when enacted permanent tax relief for families and small businesses, replaced several of washington's annual kick the can exercises with meaningful reforms and brought an end to

the job killing self-imposed oil embargo from the 1970's. many of these issues have been tangled and gridlock for years. but then, a new majority came along. law.of those is actually not everything we passed received a presidential signature, as you can imagine. we voted to create the keystone type line, he vetoed it. we voted to end the pain of obamacare. he vetoed it. we voted to defund planned parenthood. he never got those kind of bills on his desk because harry reid protected him from tough choices. it shows what is possible if we

elect a new president next year. it is a demonstration of what is happening in the senate that is not only back to work it back on the side of the american people and it also shows what is possible with perseverance. anti-humansive trafficking law we passed last year. this will be hard for you to believe, but countless innocent victims are bought and sold in the modern day slavery every year in our country. too many have no were safe to sleep. too many have no were safe to turn. too many are abused and made to feel and visible. children.y are just we thought it was time to bring justice to these victims. we thought it was time to bring voices to the voiceless and hope to the suffering in the shadows. so we passed the justice for victims of trafficking act. you would think that would be easy but it was not. it was not.

democrats filibustered this anti-slavery legislation for over a month. let me tell you why. the far left wanted to fight over the amendment. over the hide them amendment. you know what it is the long-standing principle that says federal tax dollars should not use for -- be used for elect of abortions. it has been a federal law for decades. it enjoyed bipartisan support for decades but some on the far left wanted to change that and they thought filibustering an anti-slavery bill was the appropriate venue to get their way. we were determined to fight this thert in order to preserve hide of amendment. we eventually overcame the shameful filibuster and the hide amendment was intact when the president finally signed the bill. we passed critical, compassionate, comprehensive

legislation to help victims of modern slavery and the president did not have any choice but to sign. this republican-led senate is dedicated to fighting human trafficking, combating sexual assault, and helping those whose suffer from these heinous crimes. a bill why we passed that helps victims of child pornography get restitution from those who profit from their pain. that is why we took steps to -- ofdown on so-called schools. what i am talking about is shipping child predators to other school districts. last month we not only -- we also provided additional rights and protections for victims of sexual assault. so, the senate is getting a lot done and that progress continues to this day.

this actual day. and fact, we just left the floor and within that hour the senate took an important step to passing the most sweeping reforms to the defense department legislation in a generation. an act that will soon pass. finally, a big step and hour ago. legislation that will modernize our military and provide our troops with the tools they need threats we face. as you already know, the challenges are abundant. from i sold to iran to russia to china. they are complex. as henry kissinger put it, we ofe the most diverse array crises since world war ii. if only president obama were a serious about confronting these threats as they are about confronting us. he still has not put forward a credible plan to defeat the

soul. his deal with iran continues to reveal the significant flaws every passing day and if you allow me to pass -- paraphrase jimmy carter, something i rarely do, it is hard to think of any places in the world where our relationship is better off since president obama took office. that is jimmy carter on barack obama. he is going to leave a lot of problems to his successor. what we can do is help prepare the next commander-in-chief to face these challenges. this pro-reform program on his face and defense bill will help us do that in the senate will soon.t very the young men and women who sign up to defend our nation do not ask for a lot to our nation certainly asks a lot of them. when deployed, they deserve the equipment and training necessary to do their jobs.

[applause] mitch mcconnell: let me also mention, when they come home they deserve all of our support, don't they? [applause] mitch mcconnell: that is why we are working to pass the most sweeping overhaul of our system in a generation. we have already passed legislation to support wounded warriors, veterans who struggle challenges health and to support female veterans in particular who need our help. applause] mitch mcconnell: this is also oversight andor accountability at dba. what we have seen at the v.a. in recent years is a national his grace. it is hardly the only scandal we have seen over the course of this administration. just this week, the iris was

finally forced to hand over a list of organizations it had targeted for their political views. there were hundreds of .onservative groups on the list the obama administration's conservative's breach suppression scandal shocked a lot when it first came to light. a brazen. that is why we passed reforms that will help to prevent another lois lerner. here's what is clear from looking at the last 18 months. the majority i lead has got a very different set of priorities from the one we replace. let me just hesitate for a moment and tell you the difference in being in the majority and minority. when i became the majority leader and of the minority i amr, i said to people, now the offensive coordinator. i used to be the defensive coordinator. if you are a football fan, you know the difference. the offensive coordinator calls the plays and has a better chance of putting points on the board in the senate majority

leader sets the schedule and a schedule absent is dramatically different from what harry reid was doing with the senate in the past. [applause] we arecconnell: so what interested in is a better economy and more opportunity for the middle class. a stronger national defense at a time of countless global threats. we are committed to a defending the first of amendment. congress is your first line of defense when it comes to protect this fundamental constitutional right. the supreme court is the last line of defense. the new york times recently ran a headline declaring a supreme court with merrick garland would be the most liberal in decades. garland is confirmed, the new york times also speculated he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal supreme court and 50 years. that is why president obama is

trying to airdrop another supreme court justice on his way out the door and in the middle of this election. he thinks he can get away with it, too. if he is nominating some kind of moderate. let me tell you, president obama calling someone a moderate, and does not make him a moderate. he is clearly not a moderate. america's largest organization of gun owners examined the record. here's what they found. respect ourdoes not fundamental rights to keep and bear arms for self defense. americans for small business examined his record, too. here's what they found, they always find for -- at the expense of small business owners. syllabus say this clearly. barack obama will not get a

supreme court justice at the 11th hour of his presidency on the way out the door. applause] we are right in the middle of a presidential election year. the president we are in the process of selection will make the choice. we will either return the court in the right direction or the wrong direction depending upon the outcome of this november's election. there are many reasons the -- this year. you have for me lay them out before. you heard vice president biden in the middle of an election year say if a vacancy occurred they would not fill it. that has been a very useful quote. look, we clearly disagree with the democrats on this issue. mean we cannott continue to find other areas of

agreement, which i have been talking about. so, that is what we have been doing with the new republican majority. we know we have big differences and on those we put it on the president's desk, like obamacare. like defunding planned parenthood, he has vetoed it. at the american people expect us make some progress on the things we can agree on so we have worked to find common ground. we have gotten significant things done for the country even though we have a president with whom we differ on a large array of issues. where we have had our differences, we have pointed out . he vetoed these bills. president would have signed them. we are continuing to make progress. the senate is back to work. back on the side of the american people. i could not be more proud to lead this new majority and i could not be prouder of all of you. take you for being here and

thank you for having me here to give my remarks. thank you. [applause] >> ladies in gentlemen, please welcome to the stage faith and field director. >> good morning. great to be here. as a citizen of the state of alabama i am proud and have the distinct privilege and honor this morning to introduce to you my senator, senator jeff sessions. , as we know ins our bama, is a steadfast conservative. a strong advocate for the role of law and he is and unwavering supporter of america's men and women in uniform. he grew up in rural alabama, went to huntington college. went to the university of alabama law school.

appointed him as a united states attorney in the district in alabama and we are so proud he is our senate tour. please join me in welcoming senator jeff sessions. senator sessions: thank you. thank you. thank you, john for the good work you do and all of you do to freedom.ur faith and it is the cornerstone of american democracy. a nation.s as we have to maintain a understand the exceptional development of our country and these issues are important. i am glad to follow mitch mcconnell. he mentioned the supreme court vacancy. this is an important issue and i may talk about it for a minute or two. when justice scalia, one of the greatest injustices ever to sit ofthe supreme court, a man

-- one of the greatest justices ever to sit on the supreme court. he understood and loved it the america we have been bequeathed. thought, i said, maybe i should call mitch and ask him to say right away, do not wait, say right away, we are not going to move anybody that share. it is too late. we are going to let the american people decide in the next election who will sit on this for-four supreme court. and before i could get around to doing it, he did it instinctively and i want to share with you that on the question of the courts of the united states into the legal system and good law enforcement for protection from the criminal element, mitch mcconnell is actually rock -- absolutely rock solid. it is a pleasure for me to serve

him time and time again. colleagues told our a couple of years ago and maybe i am a little warped in the brain, but i told him, the american people are not happy and i am not happy. i do not know about you, but i am on their side. you know? people do not feel about -- good about the economy. they don't feel good about a lot of issues. they do not feel good about the hostility against religion they fill out there. they are not happy about that. the polls show. the wrong track is exceedingly high. people saying this country is on the wrong track. is. i think it i think the american people are fundamentally correct a hand i believe that it is right and moral into just and biblical that we have a lawful system of immigration for the nationstate

we surveyed and i know -- and we have had economists come and testify before our committee -- that harvard professor, a world leading expert on it. if you bring in more labor than we can afford, poor weight -- poor people of their wages go down. they have their job prospects good on. things are not going well for the american people and one of the reasons is the extraordinary -- thesident extraordinary unprecedented rate of immigration. people need to be able to raise a family, take care of their children, and they are not able to do so effectively hand i believe we can do better on that. i know that we can. data -- i recalled nehemiah returning to jerusalem and he asked if he could go in thinking let him go. a little bit of a humorous joke do, but to do to

what? to build a wall. to build a wall in jerusalem. he wanted to keep the people in, you know. give me a break. i think we need to understand we in the government of the united states represent the interest of american people. we cannot do everything for everybody in the world. we are a nation state and nation states act like they are supposed to. paul said, be loyal to the state. he was not talking about, you know, it jewish the accuracy. we need to think about that. and also, when nehemiah came home he asked for letters to allow him to walk through other countries. thinking gave it to them. remember when he came into the holy land, he asked permission to go through i guess somewhere

and they would not let him. he said, we will pay money. they said, no. he said we will do all this, we will go around. they said, no. that he went around. said laws and establish you can and cannot enter. it is not biblical in my opinion. nations do that. they have done it since time immemorial and nothing is wrong with that. we need to have a fair system to give people a fair opportunity to apply and those who meet the standards can be accepted in numbers that do not excessively wages and incomes of poor americans. i truly believe that of all races and ethnic groups. in particular, minority groups suffer the most from that. one more thing. theknow, jesus talked about poor a lot and we should think

about that. and give thought to it. in my view, i have changed. every supported virtually trade agreement that has come forward but i do believe the trade agreements are serving the american people -- are not serving the american people affect every. -- effectively. i know the idea is to believe in fair markets and that is what our competitors, our business allies, our economic competitors, they do not operate on the same way we do and so it is not a purely level playing deal. when president obama signed the korean trade deal, with our good friends in south korea, he promised we would increase ororts to south korea by 12 $11 billion a year. since 2011 when it was signed, last year, we had about a $20 million increase.

we've had no increase in our aports to korea but they had 12,000,000-15 billion dollars increase to us and the trade deficit with korea doubled because it is hard throughout kinds of mechanisms to export to china, to korea, and too many of our competitors but we opened our businesses and resulted in a flood of imports. all manipulated through currency thanke them less expensive what we make them in the united states, often subsidized, often part of a project to direct the tax from american industry. so i will just say to you to understand this has consequences , these errors we make. it is not working the way it has been promised and we found the flaws in the trade deals and the computer models that layout these projections. it is just not a right thing. so i think we need to listen to

the american people. there is nothing wrong with having a lawful system of immigration that serves the american people. there is nothing wrong with saying trade agreement should not just benefit the corporate relief but give a good chance for a manufacturing plant and american workers to have a good job in this country. now, the supreme court is for-four. unbelievable. we have had this long battle for all these years. saw it closely and i understand it very clearly and now with the loss of the fifth vote, justice scalia, we are facing a critical time. someone told me, it is like this. we actually have two branches of government at stake in this election, don't we? are at risk here,

too. i was the ranking republican on the judiciary committee and it fell in my lot to handle the republican views on the confirmation of two highly up for thed women supreme court. we tried our best to do the job with integrity, fairness, but with rigor. and i felt like for many of you, the court has not been performing in a way we like it too. so what is at stake here? we had a lot of complaints. issues raised. i wanted to share one with you i think defines who we are and the challenges we face and it is something that you and this room need to understand and commit ourselves to be successful on. founde sotomayor or, we and she has given a number of

speeches over a decade in which she discussed the court and the philosophy of rolling. she quoted a philosopher, a legal writer. in this way. she favorably quoted. and she would always say there is no neutrality. stance, but ative series of perspectives. that makes the hair stand up on the back of my net. a judge to say there is no objectivity. a series of perspectives. and that the aspiration to -- this is a is aard of -- this postmodern secular mindset and i believe it is directly contrary to the founding of our republic. -- why do we have

free speech? because we believe in debate and the expression of ideas. truth should be ascertained. we believe in truth. there is a god, creator and have been, who ordered the universe with moral laws just as well as gravity law. and so, our system was set up to issues andssion of the freedom to express your views. it was not to print child pornography. but it was to allow free debate on the important issues facing our country. had senateve you with unlimited debate and you could talk as long as you wanted to. you could bring in all of the truthful make a decision about what was the best

for the united states. youwhat about your trials have the right to express yourself witnesses are compelled to even if they want to come, to the truth.er oath to " majorities are set there to hear the evidence and objectively decide >> once they take that philosophy, they are no longer bound. professor, bound by the words of the constitution. wrote one time, do you remember how the constitution ends and begins with "we the people." one.constitution, this

not the one the judge may have wished had passed, but this one. and if you start eroding your commitment to what the constitution says, there is no principle subjects that cannot be undermined in the future. i really think that this whole court system is really important and the value in battle we are engaged in here is one to reaffirm that there is objective truth, not all relevance. [applause] and that means something far right and something the wrong. in my opinion, it is not healthy for any country and that is really not healthy for a democracy like ours. thank you all for what you do. allowing me tou be a part of this. hopefully, we can try to put

this country back on the right track and i think we will get a lot better towards the end if we listen to what the american people are trying to tell us in washington. thank you all and god bless you. [applause] >> thank you all. >> please help me welcome to the stage cwa executive director, kendra barkley. [applause] >> thank you. it is my privilege today to be able to introduce the next speaker. when i was asked to introduce, i state director in texas. she said, he's a sweetheart. id being from texas, i know that means, we really like camp. he has represented the first district of texas since the year

2005. one thing you can always say about him is he will always do the right thing. so, please welcome the representative goldberg from the district of texas. [applause] >> thank you. it is great to be here with you. ralph keeps having me. i just told him, i hope you get to have one next year after i finished speaking. but anyway. we have been in the trenches fighting together and i love being in the trenches fighting with jeff sessions. he is a great and smart man. even though he does talk with a southern accent and as jeff foxworthy said, when people hear a southern accent, they

immediately deduct 50 iq points. and i think there really is something to that. but he mentioned justice scalia. partly grateful that god allowed antonin scalia to be on the supreme court? what a blessing he has been. [applause] >> and i can tell you, i counted him as a friend -- i hope you feel that way -- but where we are in the country right now, we did not deserve him. he was a man of principle. of course, i loved his principal and his plainspoken this and his sense of humor. iere is no better memories have been some really unpleasant ones in washington than tos it down at a meal with justice scalia and swap stories and jokes, because he loves jokes. it is hard sometimes when people like jokes to find one they have

not heard before. he says, oh, what about this one? this was back when they used hanging in texas. this defendant was the worst of the worst. he had done the most despicable things and was sentenced to hang and on that saturday morning, 2000 or 3000 people gathered to watch. the sheriff put them up on the gallows and said, we have a tradition in our town before we hang somebody we give them a chance to address the crowd. would you like to do that? he said, no. he said, i don't think you understand. you are about to meet the supreme court, the supreme judge, your maker and most people think it is a good idea to apologize and ask for forgiveness. you have many peoples' families out here. thought you think you should apologize before you are hanged. he said, no, not really. at that point, somebody in the audience yelled, will the gentleman yield?

and you look at the sheriff and said, i don't know what that means. the guy who yelled that, that is the local congressman and that is congress-talk for he wants you to give him your time to speak to the crowd. he said, can i do that? the sheriff says, i guess you can, the want to. he said, sure i do, only if you hang me first. now, i am going to get to something right now and this is apparently what i am things were and it drives the left nuts. the i am going to talk about something that enough people are not talking about. what happens when a very .mportant issue is afoot

you have heard of something called transgendered. [crowd boos] >> we've got to talk about this ok. folderbrought a manilla . i have never done this before. this time, i have got articles here. like i said, i have not done this before. what i wanted you to hear me when i talk about this. one transgender man was theh head of psychiatry at johns hopkins medical facility. i vaguely remember reading somewhere that back in the 60's john hopkins was the first hospital to start doing sex change surgery. i have read that, maybe you have. but i did not read anywhere

until i was directed to dr. mccue's article in the "wall street journal." they stop doing this years ago, the sex change. mccue tell you what paul has said. these are his professional be as. -- his professional point of views. andersonting for kirby and i had dr. mccue on. anyway,'s article and you can find this in "the wall street journal," may 13. he's of the policymakers and the media are doing no favors to the their by treating confusions as a write in need of defending, rather than a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment, and prevention. [applause]

this intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder. the first, the idea of sex misalignment is mistaken. it does not correspond with physical reality. the second is it can lead to grim psychological outcomes. he says the transgender suffer a disorder of assumption. like those with other disorders lead to psychiatry. the assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature. orely, one's malesness femaleness. or bully me under nervosa, the assumption departs from the reality that the expressively thin are

overweight. one feeling of gender is a conscious objective sense that being in one's mind cannot be questioned by anyone else. the individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this personal truth, but an affirmation of it. here rests the support for transgender equality. the demands for government payment for medical or surgical treatments and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges. he says with a this article advocating for the transgender have persuaded several states, including california, new jersey, and massachusetts, to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore the natural gender feelings to a transgendered minor. the government can intrude in the parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children.

saying that psychiatrists must challenge this and he makes up the great point what an incredible irony that states have passed laws that say, you can't take a child or a psychiatrist psychologist or counselor for tot is only in their head get them help for what is in their head. no physical manifestation. orders of here, this consciousness after all, represents psychiatry's domain. declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field of psychiatry. do you get that? doesn't that make sense. he says, you will. from those championing transgender equality, by controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. when children reported

transgender feelings were tracked with a medical or london'streatment at clinic, 70% to 80% spontaneously lost those feelings. 25% did have some persistent feelings. what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned. holy smoke. think of the damage we are doing to kids, not just the poor girls or women that have been sexually abused, having a man walk in during their most important privacy. that is about enough. but what about the damage to the little child that is confused and we are not allowed to help that confused child? he points out a 2011 study in sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgender evidence that could give aggregates puasuase.

unfortunately, it has not. the study followed 324 people who had sex reassignment surgery. the study revealed that beginning about 10 years after the surgery, the transgender began to experience increasing mental difficulties. most shuffling, ther suicide .ortalit rose this disturbing result has yet no explanation, but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. the high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription. i did not read this, but it turns out johns hopkins, the first hospital in america to do surgery, quitvic doing it years ago because they found out, we are not helping and are probably hurting and so we should not be cutting up

normal organs. is serious and i know it is unpleasant to talk about and that is why so often we lose. people are afraid of being called crazy or phobic of some kind. i have one phobia and that is a god phobia. i have a fear of god and we are told that is the beginning of wisdom. i have a long way to go, but that is beginning. [applause] finishes his article and says of the heart of the problem is confusion over the transgendered's sex change. do you hear that? this is what one transgender sex change of surgery victim says is the guy that knows more about transgender and he is saying, sex changes biologically impossible. people who undergo reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women,

claiming this is a civil rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality, to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder. when i was interviewing him, the 5, the diagnostic and statistical manual, has what is the accepted diagnoses that a physician can prescribe or list. and they have changed this mental disorder of transgender to the term transgender dysphoria. and dr. mccue said on the radio with me. he said that dysphoria may be more descriptive than disorder because dysphoria -- you know what euphoria is and this is the antonym -- this means you have a general feeling of

dissatisfaction with something. in this case, being with your female or masculine gender. it is a generalized sense of this satisfaction and for that you want to cut off organs and destroy peoples' lives. and now this administration says, we are going to have the va do sex change operations. really? do we not have enough veterans committing suicide without you increasing that 20 times? enough is enough! and we have to stand up for our veterans. we are the adults. we have to stand up for our children. and let me just give you this last, final story. sometimes people talk about, wow, even when he was a judge he made international headlines. i had a guy come before me for stealing a car. i was a felony judge and the state legislature had just made

that a mandatory probation. well, i look at this guy. he has got this long rap sheet, all of these convictions. i would not have given him probation, but that was mandated. but i get to set the terms and conditions. and i could not bring this up, but his lawyer brought it up first, that my client has aids. and so, we want to make sure that if you send him to substance abuse treatment that he gets this medication that keeps him alive. i said, i understand and we will take care of that, but one of my jobs is to makes her that the conditions of probation -- is to make sure that with of the conditions of probation i protect the public's safety. it has occurred to me that when you go for surgery a doctor has to, by law, has to give you all of the risks of the surgery. and then, once you have been informed of all of the risks,

cap design a -- you have to sign a statement of confirmed risks. i said, i got to thinking about this and i said, i don't know where you got the hiv virus. and for our purposes, it does not matter. but i bet, when you became hiv positive, he wished the person that had gave it to you had told you about the risks inherent in having sexual relations. so, here is one of your conditions of probation. he will not have sexual relations with anyone unless you first advise them in writing that you have aids, they could get it, and they could die. i said, doesn't that seem fair? and he said, that seems fair. everyone thought that seemed fair. and then all of these gay rights groups came after me and they filed an appeal and all of this stuff. it made international news, which is how i found out

about a relative in your. -- in europe. but anyway, i had judges across texas say, wow, that was really smart. i said, do you want the forms? they said, are you crazy? i don't want the grief you have been getting. but that was i believe, in 2094. -- in 1994. now most states have made it illegal, made it a crime that if you expose aids to somebody knowingly, that is a crime. but somebody had to at first stand up and be called crazy and be called a homophobe. but all i was doing was caring about the people that could be harmed if i did not speak up. folks, we've got to do the same thing. that is why you are here. because we know the creator and

we know the source of our strength. my time is up but your time is not. let's stand together and make our voices heard. thank you and god bless you. [applause] hillary clinton is in ohio tomorrow for a campaign event in cleveland. :30 p.m. one at 12 c-span2. then, donald trump gives a speech live in manchester, new p.m.hire, live that 2:30 >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the the united states.

[cheers and applause] >> we want to welcome craig shirley, the author of a number "reagan'sincluding revolution." the campaign that started it of course, 1976 and we want to begin right away, but talking about rule 16c. before we do that, we want to welcome our viewers from c-span's american history tv. and we have remarkable coverage of the day that led to president ford's nomination in 1976. here is a portion. >> the republican party is here

to nominate a presidential candidate for 1976 and an incumbent president for the first time since 1912 faces a series challenge from within his own party. that is tomorrow night, according to the schedule, but the matter could be settled out here on the floor of this convention tonight. they will be a vote tonight and both sides acknowledge. it will test of their strength, which could make or break their candidate here. 16cill be on a change and is the number of that new rule. that would force president ford to name his vice presidential running mate by tomorrow morning. 12 hours before the presidential balloting is scheduled to begin. l balloting is scheduled to begin. 16c, we should point 16c was designed to do what? guest: to force president ford

to name his running mate ahead of the ballot for the nomination of president of the united states. host: politically why? fractured,, it was they were outsiders, insiders, and lots of dollar fracture, too, and reagan's campaign manager reason that anybody would contact denies certain ofcentage of the delegation the nominated convention, and hopefully prevent him from winning -- the whole goal was to prevent gerald ford from winning the nomination. a lot of delegates in states like north carolina and kentucky were mandated to vote for gerald ford on the first ballot and would be free to open or vote for whom they wanted to in the second ballot and there was reason that if they could get forward to name a running mate,

it would suppress his clothes and he could not get the first ballot nomination. host: why is this important today? following "today, all republicans are reagan republicans, and reagan's definition of maximum freedom is consistent with law and order and has become the basis of the party's philosophy. furthermore, reagan unleash the most vigorous debates over the role of government in american daily lives. since the founding of the republic. these debates and the ensuing translation of the republican party started with reagan's seemingly quixotic but most important campaign: his failed 1976 presidential campaign." guest: some things never change. ford's operation so he was advising john kasich and he was involved spencergan and 1976 and

is still around, he was advising john kasich and was reagan's campaign, to factor campaign manager, so a lot of people who were around 40 years ago are still around today. host: if you look back at this convention, you have a sitting republican president and this led to the watergate investigation and the resignation of richard nixon, the first and only appointed vice president that became president, but a real division between the gop, more business chamber of commerce and more conservative and ideological link led by ronald reagan. guest: it is interesting that as action as the republican party 1974, whenaugust, nick's and resigned, only 18% of the american people claimed allegiance to the republican party. voters under 30 years of age, had allegiance to the republican party. it was operationally dead. there was on the one state that had republicans in the

legislative and that was kansas. there were states in the south that did not have elected republicans in office. republicans in the senate were so they cannotrs stop legislation. house,re at 143 in the so the republican party of august 1974 was for all intensive purposes, in debt in the party. host: what are the moments you account in your book and it was not scripted. as gerald ford secured the nomination, he called on ronald reagan and nancy reagan took come down. let's watch, courtesy of cbs news. ♪ [video clip] ♪ >> i ask ronald reagan to come down and join me.

reagan is still signing on the grass. -- signing autographs. he is shouting into the microphone. would you come down? come on down. they just delivered the alabama to reagan and the arizona standard. he is walking down stairs and he comes to the podium. that is such a classic moment in american history. guest: it is all drama. talkingwhat reagan was about, a lot of drama. a single your -- the singular moment in american politics because he gives a speech live

before 17,000 republicans that what, and that really is american politics is about -- drama. host: coming up in the next hour, a chance to watch on c-span3's american history tv, some of that remarkable coverage that did provide ample coverage of the proceedings. you mentioned a moment as reagan makes his way down to the podium and his impromptu remarks. [video clip] someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that will be opened in los angeles 100 years from now. it sounded like an easy assignment. they suggested i write something about the problems and issues of the day and i said that to do so, writing down the blue pacific on one site and the mountains on the other and i could not help but wonder if it would be that beautiful 100 years from now as it was on that

summer day. as i tried to write, let your own minds turn to that task. you are going to write for people 100 years from now who know all about us, we know nothing about them. we do not know what kind of world they will be living in, and suddenly, i thought to myself, if i write of the problems, they will be domestic problems of which the president spoke it tonight. the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom that has taken place in the democratic role in this country, the invasion of private rights that control the restrictions on the metallic the of the great entry economy that we enjoy. these are our challenges that we must meet. and then there is the challenge of which he spoke between limited world and of which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other, horrible missiles of distraction, nuclear weapons that can in the matter of minutes to arrive in each

other's country and destroy. , thosey it dawned on me who agrees this letter 100 readers are now -- those who would read this letter 100 years from now, they would know whether those missiles were fired, whether we met our challenge, whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here. , ronaldaig shirley reagan back in 1976. no teleprompter. he did not appear that speech. why? aest: he wasn't going to give speech that night. he was in the skybox. he was overlooking kemper arena and he was not going to give a speech that night. he was asked by tom brokaw. he said, no. ford knows he is the nominee of a broken and divided party. he needs a unified party and the

best way to do that is bring reagan down to the podium this big to the crowd and hopefully endorsed and unify the party willse unifying the party win in the fall and divided parties will lose in the fall. think about when republicans are 1976, democrats divided in 1968, soaking you that if he had a chance against gerald ford, at this -- i mean, jimmy carter because at this point, jimmy carter is 30 points ahead in the national polls of 1976. but ford reagan down, had also spoken and given arguably the best speech he ever gave, so they want reagan to tok a little bit less shiny his followers and make forward look better. and wanted reagan to endorse forward but not look too good or

do too well, so that is part of the agenda, too, but still, tremendous animosity between the factions. went 1976 the last time we into convention without knowing who the nominee would be. 40 years later, are the lessons to the republicans and democrats? phone lines are open. (202)-748-8001 line for republicans. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. send us a tweet @cspanwj. you were not there but your wife was there. guest: my wife was there and they had to group of beautiful supporters for gerald ford called presidential's. they were organized by the ford campaign, and whenever he made a public appearance in a crowd with tv cameras, the presidential's would appear and cheer and applaud, you know, encourage the presidents of the united states. she was there as a presidential in 1976.

if": this is a "what question, if he had been the nominee, do you think you would have been jimmy carter? guest: i have talked with a number of people about this and i think, yes, he would have. he would have brought in the reagan democrats currently, so ,tates like mississippi, ohio and out of 4 million votes, it was covered by 6000 votes and texas is just as close. i think reagan would have swung both the state to his side. secondly, i doubt reagan would have made a hash out of the presidential debates the way forward to did. you remember the second debate where he effectively stopped his rising in the polls catching up to carter and he froze five days to seven days before he apologized and started rising again, but he did not catch jimmy carter in time.

i think it is quite possible that reagan would have won. states like michigan are open to question because they went heavily for ford, and i don't know, but it was a tremendously close election. hawaii, which is like 2000 votes for jimmy carter and ohio only went by 6000 votes, you would have had a deadlock because there was one fateful election that year from washington state who voted for gerald ford, so you would have been to 69 and 26 the ninth and it would have put it in the house of representatives. who knows at that point because gerald ford had a lot of friends there and jimmy carter was open and running a campaign hostile to washington. no one knows what would have happened. host: ted is joining us, democrat, you are on the phone with craig shirley author of how many books now? guest: seven.

caller: good morning. i am going to today's politics and the republican party and i was wondering if he could comment on michael reagan's comments about whether his father would support from an -- support from, and even ronald reagan, it concurs with whether reagan would approve of a nominee like trump. host: thank you. guest: mike and ron knew their father, his thinking. whether or not they could speculate reagan would support from is another matter. reagan did support the nominee of his party even though he disagreed with him. it is interesting to note that 1964 when goldwater was controversial nominee of the all of themarty, fled during goldwater, mitt

scranton,ather, bill they all fled. the only two people that stood by goldwater work richard nixon and ronald reagan and both ended up becoming president of the united states, so there is something to be set up loyalty. host: a viewer said, how did break and finally beat the gop hisblishment and create "big tent" at the same time? guest: reagan never coined "they tent," but a lot of the primaries were open primaries so that democrats and independents could come and vote for the candidate of their choice. reagan would have lost the wisconsin primary arguably to then ambassador george bush because so many reagan democrats turned out to vote for ronald reagan and interestingly, they were not called reagan democrats

until after the 1980 election. they were simple conservative democrats were democrats supporting ronald reagan. and a lot of key states, were for ronald reagan, so he repositioned to the republican party toward the more populist outside party by basically running against the establishment. when he ran in 1976, he held the national press conference and he invades against the district, labor, lobbyists, upon it was anti-bigness. populist activity in illinois at the time. he was born in kentucky, grew up in the 1930's, so he did so in a way that he did so also by talking about freedom and toortunity and talking primary voters and the general

election voters in a way that republicans have not talked before. host: our guest is craig shirley , one of facebook books "reagan's revolution," which is what we are focusing on. we are also airing this program on c-span3 american history tv and on that network, a chance to watch about 4.5 coverage from cbs news of august 1976. it is fascinating. margaret, chapel hill, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to kind of say that i disagree with him saying reagan would have been carter in those days. i do not believe that the country was ready for another republican. read "the presidents club" to find out what really happened behind-the-scenes. it is very interesting. thank you. host: thank you. guest: i read "the president's club."

it was a very good book. it was strictly a speculative question but i do think it was possible. nobody knows, but it is possible reagan would have brought a different campaign and gerald ford would have. gerald ford was tied to watergate and reagan would not have been tied to watergate and he would have run a different campaign. continuation of the next and administration would not have been an issue had reagan been the nominee as opposed to gerald ford. host: when you see this tweet from a senator in a tech reelection battle in illinois and he said, even my military experience, donald trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal. the reaction? in the state of the republican party today.

guest: i won't say disaster, but i really do think it is open to the question of how the party with a merge. there is no doubt that a skid exists, there are the populists in terms of outsiders and there is the establishment corporate, big government republican insiders. 43was coined during the bush republicanson, so argued for what i call high parties, which of the government dictating programs and arthur initiatives -- and other initiatives to the people. path is founders and framers and what they intended, which is power flows ofard to the people instead downward, and that is the great debate inside the republican party. where does power reside? visit reside with elites, in washington, with new york, or does it reside among the many american people?

the party has not decided which path it will follow. host: john is next for massachusetts on the line for independents morning. caller: good morning. i did not know what line to call in for. democrat,ow republican or independent, but i wanted to talk about the 1976 convention. i was working in massachusetts for the and republicans and kind of amazing people like hugh hewitt, but he was working on the campaign back then. more interesting to me was the dole at theobert convention, he was kind of the rising star that convention, and

just in the timeframe that you have been up and all the things that have gone on in the past with jimmy carter and operation cyclone and yadda, yadda, and all the rhetoric and things that happened that watergate compared to kind of what is going on now, it seems like it is quite [indiscernible] what are your comments on that? host: thank you. history does repeat itself sometimes with divisions inside the republican party by the goldwater campaign and watergate and with george romney and nelson rockefeller and others in the theme is repeated today. we know what the outcome was for the goldwater campaign and we for thed the foundation nomination ronald reagan in 1976 and 1980.

a party in many ways rejected reagan and embraced bushism, although, now it is hand-to-hand combat over what path it will follow. host: they say this, there is nothing wrong with the gop view, the people, only in the eyes of what they call "the dinosaur elite" that will not conform. guest: i think he has a fair point. when is the last time the republican party proposed shaking government? i am talking about washington politicians, when was the last time the proposed eliminating the department of education, energy or downsizing in any way, shape or form of shrinking the power and control of authority of the national government and sending it back to the state's and localities where it belongs? therein lies this the the disagreements inside the party thinkbecause the people

one thing and the elites think something different. host: let's go to new york city, democrat line. caller: good morning. ?that does the fact hillary have the temperament she questions inald trump's temper -- question the fact that does hillary have the temperament? she questions donald trump's temperament, but she went to iraq and has dismembered the entire arab union over there. she is the lender should be held accountable. we should not be rewarding her with the presidency when she did that awful mistake. you just don't say, whoops, i made a mistake. clinton'smrs. defense, almost everybody except to going into iraq and that was a natural reaction to 9/11. also have their divisions, too, and that is part

of the fuel for bernie sanders' hindsight is 2020 and it remains to be seen whether this issue will dog mrs. clinton or not. host: first, why did gerald ford decide not to run for a full term and then change his mind? guest: you did your homework. he wrote a piece after he became vice president and shortly after he became president, after nick was out of office in 1974, i think he got bad advice -- after nixon was out of the office in 1974, think he got bad advice. do not forget that the country was in very sad shape as of august 1974 as your celeb were with vietnam, we on the losing rates,vietnam, interest gas lines, arab oil embargo's, and in every way, shape and

form, consumer, people's attitudes, it was not in good shape in august 1974. i think he got the way to heal the country would to say that he is not going to run for election and then he will govern as president of all the people and not the republican party. he immediately creates questions concert to terms and if he cannot serve a full four years of his own, why should he be there to terms? -- why should he be there two terms? there were personal insults aimed at ronald reagan that generated from gerald ford's white house. this election of nelson rockefeller as vice president, was that the defining moment for

ford and reagan? i interviewed vice president cheney about this and nelson that they chose rockefeller for reason of stature. they wanted to bring someone into the administration who was seen as having stature in american politics and the world affairs. gerald ford was a one term congressman from michigan, who was not seen as a world leader, not even as an american leader, thethey wanted to bulk up authority, the magistrate of the executive office and branch, so that is why they threw rockefeller in. it did not help. in fact, it hurts because it fueled proceeds of conservatives breaking forward which led to eventually reagan's challenger. host: we will have a couple more minutes from the cbs coverage, including gerald ford and a conversation with senator bob

dole, forward's running mate. as go to matt in minnesota on their republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for mr. shirley. in minnesota, we had an election with the establishment with komen for governor and skip humphrey and the republican democrat and we had a wrestler, who won the governorship here. i'm wondering if you can draw some parallels and see how assibly electing an outsider trump, as we might, could be a big mistake, which was, in my opinion, i don't think jesse forure have the temperament governor. he did some things ok, but he was mostly kind of a nothing.

i am curious of what you think about that. host: thank you. guest: benjamin rush was one of the founders. fire. paine was the power by that, he meant that american is that it succeed must always be in perpetual state of the revolution. you must always question authority, status quo and how the season that eventually became the republican party. they have been anti-status quo. teddy roosevelt was anti-status quo. so was dwight eisenhower. dominated america and washington for years since the

end of world war ii. quo, and oftatus course, ronald reagan was the very definition of anti-status quo. you never think of what reagan is going to be as part of washington because he came for eight years and he constantly challenged the reigning authority and status quo. conversation, (202)-748-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. the 1976k back at convention that pitted president gerald ford and former governor ronald reagan. general ford -- gerald ford delivering these remarks after getting the nomination. [video clip] ford: to whom the overwhelming the power had twice been shattered, losing faith in the word of their elected

leaders and americans want some of their faith in their own selves. again, let's look at the records of august 1974. the start, my administration has been open, candid, forthright. [applause] while my entire public and private life was under searching examination for the vice presidency, i reaffirmed my lifelong conviction that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only government, with civilization itself. [applause] i have demanded honesty, decency and personal integrity from everybody in that executive branch of the government, the house, senate have the same duty.

[applause] the american people will not accept the double standard in the united states congress. [applause] as you look at that speech, how did forward do -- how did ford do? guest: he did very well. it was certainly the best local speech of his life. he was not known as being a good speech maker and one commentator said ford could see the sleep in the second paragraph and reagan could not get a standing ovation -- and reagan could get a standing ovation from a graveyard. he helped write the speech and how to practice in front of the

teleprompter. ronald reagan was arguably the best speech maker and america, he and jesse jackson probably the best speech makers in 1976, so he has got to do something about this. arguably the best speech is ever given in his life. host: the kemper arena in kansas city, missouri, i mention that because stephen is from there. is the arena still there? caller: yes, it is. is, how did the republicans go from eisenhower through george bush having a strong america and not always having the gop establishment win, but they were never nationalist like trump. how did they go to get one elected like this? guest: i will try to answer this. parties involved, they change over time because the issues change.

men and women change and the attitudes for the american people change. the republican party has changed since the time of reagan. inple forget jimmy carter 1976 ran against the washington establishment. it was pretty good on issues [indiscernible] in many ways as a conservative optimist outside contradictory to what the democratic party had been since the time of franklin d. roosevelt, when they put more faith in the government. the ability of the government to protect resident kennedy or martin luther king jr. or bobby kennedy junior, so the government by the 1976 is at an all-time low and it illustrates my point that parties change

because issues change because people change. host: the relationship between ronald reagan and gerald ford was -- guest: [laughter] difficult, complicated. one of ford's speechwriters wrote that the could barely be in the same room together and cannot stand they each other, which is unusual because reagan's were very affable and got along with just about everybody. host: why didn't forward ask as deagan f -- why didn't for asked reagan to serve as his running mate? to geraldy had gone ford several weeks before and they were armed with polling ford'shat said that best choice in 1976 would be reagan to reach out to democrats in key states like michigan, pennsylvania, texas, mississippi , but reagan considerably did

not want to be, so he told john sears to talk to cheney that when he meets a ford after the battle, regardless it he wins the nomination, that i do not want him to embarrass the president of the united states by telling him, no, i do not want to be his running mate, so to be myo not tell him running mate, so they delivered the message to dick cheney to ford's white house chief of staff. they met the night that ford won the nomination but ford did not ask reagan to be his running mate because reagan did argue said he did not want to be his running mate. host: and john sears is still alive today. guest: still alive. talks aboutook something missing these days, the silly hats from 1976.

fromll listen to chad north carolina on the republican line. caller: i heard the comment about jesse ventura and he was i think what our founding fathers wanted. he had been in navy seal, which less than 1% of military becomes. thatw what he thought was needed fixing. in my opinion, i grew up in georgia. presidentot another who built houses. he still teaches sunday school in 90 years old and i think reagan was a powerful speaker and he was kind of -- people trusted reagan, probably the best figurehead country has ever had. that is just my opinion.

last act, the final years and emerging legacy of ronald reagan. guest: yes, i believe that card or -- i believe that he has defined the role for former presidents. most presidents went [indiscernible] en president would call, they would go back to private citizens and not engage in work through a corridor has -- the way carter has. he was very, very helpful. host: mark joining us from new york. frank, good morning? i will try one more time for frank in new york. let me ask you about this reagan'swho was ronald

running mate in 1976. why did that backfire? guest: it did not backfire. it worked brilliantly. host: they said they were upset. but he supported it. they were upset, but he supported it. it was a risk, which according to [indiscernible] something to do because it was three weeks out from the convention, and they had the most respected operation in america, egg, massive, well-funded. looking athad been numbers, jim baker held a press conference saying reagan had 1157 and they would hold a dueling press conference saying, no, and nobody knew what the actual count was. in this fraud

machine to keep their candidate's chances alive until kansas city. kansas city is the first time republicans did not know who the nominated party is going to be since 1952, the first time when they didn't know if it would be dwight eisenhower or the senator from ohio. it is the first time trying to gain psychological advantage, so cbs says, we will just count everybody ourselves, so they -- they startout calling everyone around the country. and if all 55 share to contact said it, you could bank on it and it was true, the most trusted man in america. to announce, prepared to announce that gerald ford has secured enough beforees, three weeks the convention, if he does this and goes on national television

and makes the announcement, reagan's campaign is dead in the water. the storyo change line. the way to do it was for reagan to do something unprecedented, which was to choose his running mate the head of the convention. they chose them brilliantly. reagan was a well, modern conservative from pennsylvania who was ironically afford fordate -- ironically a delegate. conservative on pro-life, vaccinations, the second amendment, national defense and he had been vetted by the media, was married to a wonderful woman and never any scandals associated with him. all, it will kill the cbs story because it will create doubt about

pennsylvania and new york and other state delegate counts, so that part of it works brilliantly, which is to kill the cbs story. they keep reagan's campaign alive until the convention and was part ofy -- it a three-part strategy by sears, first was the campaign, second ford to nameing their running mate, and the third part was to get the motion on the floor that both tickets have to address the convention and that is what terrified ford forces, they do not ronald reagan addressing the convention. he was this close to a runaway convention and they were terrified. reagan spoke to the national we saw, andas people and have said, i do not care what the rules say, i am

voting for reagan for president of the united states. at least one delegate turned into a ford supporter and she turns to reagan field manager and says, oh, my god, we have nominated the wrong man. host: let's go to black in georgia. -- let's go to buck in georgia. you particular call. great conversation by the way. i am wondering how these outsiders or if these outsiders are an indispensable, if unintentional sort of antiseptic to the flow of power? i am not sure was designed this way but it really sounds like it in the air of the conversation that these people are more than indispensable. guest: they are more than indispensable. , you know, iton

says we the people, not we the leaves or with the corporate elites, but we the people. you take the literal meaning of the framers and founders, it is that this is a government of all the people and not just the elites, so we had a great tension going on and sometimes more. during the great depression and world war ii, we are far more united as a country than we are today. formere will hear from senator bob dole in the moment. why did gerald ford select him? guest: the night that reagan and ford met alone at the alameda hotel, after ford secured the that ford handed reagan a list of about six candidates to run.

dole knew he was on the short list and he asked an old friend, look, if president ford asks governor reagan about me, we do ask governor reagan to say something nice? so he said, yes and he tells this to reagan and if ford asked you about dole, say something nice, so reagan was looking at handed himat ford and he speaks favorably for bob dole, which is part of the dole. why ford chose he was a conservative, 19 76, war hero, well thought of, they thought he would be a good combative campaign there and take the fight to corridor in 1976 and that he would be a good debater and you would help unify

the convention. he was not a stand-in for reagan but acceptable. host: we had a conversation with bob dole, not only about his role as gerald ford's running mate, but this question -- did ronald reagan do enough in 1976 to unite the republican party? [video clip] you about that moment where ronald reagan came down and you are standing off to the side with resident ford. do you think at that point that he did enough to unite the republican party in 1976? dole: no, i would have to say probably not. i mean the reagan people were reagan people. candidatesonderful and he did not get the nomination. i think there are thousands and

thousands of republicans, reagan republicans and reagan democrats , who did not support ford. i was the one who met with reagan a couple of times, once in new hampshire, and i cannot remember the second place. we try to bring him around and get him to support wholeheartedly, if that is the word. and is very good to me, think it was attempted

endorsement, i am not certain how he said it, but it was not very long. i think he could have made a afference and talked about very close election. this was a very close election. was he right about that? guest: probably. you have to put yourself back in 1976. reagan has just lost by the narrowest of margins. he has lost because of shenanigans and hanky-panky in some delegations like in new york, mississippi and others. he has also been the brunt of personal attacks gerald ford and the former white house for two years. he has gone through grueling campaigns, so he is angry. time, he did not do a lot of campaigning f for theord --

campaigning for the ford ticket. ford did not call and ask reagan for his help until one month after the kansas city convention and the election of 1976 was very complex. the national election was until november 2, the early sin has been held in 100 years. from let's go to ari georgia. caller: who did ronald reagan send to iran before the election in 1980 to negotiate with them about holding onto the hostages? guest: nobody. there has never been any credible -- the october surprise got flipped on its head because it was referring to carter possibly getting the hostages out before the november election and the american people were in gratitude with reelection in november of 1980, so there is

far more evidence that the hostages were manipulated for political gain and there is some didence with jimmy carter such as the morning of the wisconsin primary, when he goes on national television to announce a major breakthrough that has occurred in the hostage negotiations, thereby, he picks up his voters and supporters in wisconsin in 1980 and ends up winning the primary there. the wonderful political reporter for "the washington post" noted several long detailed stories in 1980 about how president carter had politicized and used and manipulated the hostage crisis to his advantage in 1980, so there is far more evidence coming from many more sources that carter politicized the

hostage crisis and actually, on the sidelines throughout 1980. the summer of 1980 when carter attempted the rescue, which failed, reporters caught up with reagan and he said, this is the day for two words in many prayers and that is pretty much it. host: in about 10 minutes, coverage from 1976 cbs news. you can watch it on c-span3's american history to be as you look at the convention in kansas city. a lot of great moments, including this one under the direction of walter kwok right -- walter cronkite. he makes a reference to the former governor of new york. [video clip] walter: could you stand up for a moment? the phone people are here connecting it.

you have the disconnected phone. governor: it was the greatest efficiency and they are tremendous with speed, right on the job. i have to give it back so they can put it in. walter: good for the fund company. -- good for the phone company. mr. vice president, what happened? what did you see? who did it and what happened? know and we just told nick rosenbaum that if he did not get that sign back, -- walter: what sign was that? take a sign from another man, a reagan sign. >> he held it as i went by. walter: and then he came back to get the reagan sign back. >> it was a man from utah. walter: ok. -- a little on the light side.

walter: ok. >> i am trying to get out but i cannot get out. walter: vice president wants to get out of here and he cannot unless we get out of here. there he goes, secret service helping him. from 1976, vice president nelson rockefeller and a classic moment. guest: total spontaneity. conventions were so scripted and we expected to be less scripted this time, but this was complete spontaneity. that is the vice president of the united states, but that was part of 1976. what happened was that rockefeller for a sign that was holding up that said reagan for president and rockefeller ripped it out of the delegate's hand and tore it up and the utah

delegates on what was happening and he took the sign away from nelson rockefeller and gave it back to the north carolina delegate. he agitated the whole situation and it was from rockefeller. host: hector from san diego. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- the last comment answered my question in terms of security for the 1976 convention. host: what about security? guest: there was secret service, but that would never happen in a million years, they would not viceallow dick cheney or presidents for now or nominees to go on for today, even with all of the technology and all the other security. they would never allow the vice president or president to mingle

with the delegates, except in the most controlled and limited circumstances. host: i say this with a smile on my face, look at the hair from 1976. john from philadelphia on the republican line. where the democrats will meet this time. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. my daughter is working the democratic convention as an electrician down there. wasmember back when reagan about to come in office. i was really young and did not understand a lot of things about politics, but what i thought was that they carved away from the a shoo-ina that was for reagan to become president. that was known before he was elected that that was what he was going to do. iran contra was run by

h and became an issue in 1987, but i don't see the connection. host: lessons for republicans in 2016 as you look back? guest: faith in the american people. isresentative government derived term republic and the public is derived from christian values, which is that the apublican party should be moral, anti-corrupt and anti-insider party. concentrationsth , personal freedoms, and the best way for the republican party to perceive or to proceed forward in the country, especially with the people, is not the question of ideology but practicality.

country a big, fast is the best way to govern is to send power out to the american people, the localities individuals -- localities, individuals and let them decide. host: as someone who spent his entire life falling republican politics, i want to share with you the passing of the former senator who began in cleveland, ohio, as the mayor, and he was 79 years old. his legacy. --st: george point of h vich was a pioneer of new republican style in the midwest, which can about after eisenhower, which was ideological compared to wild ronald reagan, but he wanted a break from the past of

the republicans that brought a lot of performing party politics. your new book on newt gingrich will come out when? guest: next spring. host: thank you for being with >> on the base wasn't in general the mass shooting in orlando. .he latest in the investigation : by phone or leave a comment or just called in by phone or leave a comment on facebook. >> tonight on the communicators, the president of the communication workers of america discusses the unions recent 45 date strike against verizon. anti---calls the cwa's broadband expansion. he is joined by reporter david

section -- david shepherdson. >> the landline may go away. want tomore and more, have broadband capability all over the united states. the fcc is backing up giving companies to build up broadband and moral communities. -- in rural communities. that is a big part of what we do. it is going to become a bigger part of what we do. >> watch the "communicators" tonight on c-span two. >> the assistant secretary of state for european and eurasian affairs and a russian pro democracy activist are among those scheduled to testify at a hearing on u.s. policy toward russia. they talk to lawmakers about russia's military, it's relationship to nato and the country's political system. this is just over two hours.

>> the foreign relations committee will come to order. we thank our witnesses for being here and look forward to their testimony. we're obviously here today to talk about russia and its role in the world. together our countries conquered the nazis, prevented proliferation of nuclear weapons in 1990's and fought against terrorists after 9/11. yet for most of modern history, americans and russians have found themselves at cross purposes. throughout the cold war we trained to obliterate each other. with the fall of the berlin wall, many argued that difficult days of confrontation were behind us. leaders like gorbachev and yeltsin worked to place russia on a path toward democracy and peaceful engagement with the rest of the world. reagan asked for the wall to be torn down. george w. bush had putin come to his ohm and obama sought to just to his home in texas and

ando his home in texas obama sought to reset the relationship in a way that prioritized communication and cooperation. scholars will long argue other exactly when the u.s.-russia relationship again became confrontational, but looking back, the russia-georgia war in august of 2008 seems to be the mark of they have beginning of a new age. since that summer, a so-called resurgent russia has pushed back on the institutions and allifes -- and allies the west. russia invaded georgia and ukraine, striking them in way designed to prevent their integration into the neuropeen unit and north atlantic treaty alliance. they've acted contrary to the nuclear forces treaty, the new strategic arms reducks treaty, the open skies treaty and the incidents as sea agreement. russia has altered the human rights landscape within its own country, decreasing democracy and begging questions about the future of governance, not just in moscow but across the federation.

moreover, russia joined the civil war in syria and began militarizing the arctic. now when we talk about u.s.-russia relationship, the ways we interact globally, the the end of the cold war seem very far away. as the relationship has once again grown distrustful and confrontational. as we meet today to talk about the role that russia has come to play in the last several year -- several years, we must address these topics through the lens of realism. it would be easy to simply cat test to simply catalog the events that was brought taos where we are today but we are charged with a higher responsibility which is not only to diagnose the problem, but to begin generating prescriptions for where we go next. discussions about violations of norms must be paired with conversations about ways of effectively setting boundaries and engaging with russia. in order to make our world more stable and ultimately to serve u.s. national interests. our countries are too powerful and the interplay between us too

important to resign ourselves to the increasing risk of confrontation and escalation. i look forward to hearing today how we can recognize the new realities of the u.s.-russia relationship and implement a new strategy that puts us on a better trajectory. with that i turn to our distinguished ranking member, senator cardin. senator cardin: chairman corker, let me thank you for calling this hearing and let me concur with the statements in your opening statement, i agree we -- opening statement. i agree we points you raise and the challenges we have in regards to our relationship with russia. today we meet to discuss russia's efforts to undermine institutions that have maintained peace and security in europe since the end of the cold war. russia's actions in georgia in 2008, support for separationists enclaves in georgia and moll doe ,- georgia and melanoma

invasion of ukraine, illegal annexation of cry mia, and the ongoing support of exind separationist forces in ukraine have challenged the security of sovereign borders, something that's been a mainstream of relations in europe since the signing of the helsinki accord in 1985. we have serious concerns about russia's compliance with seminal arms control treaties. while i understand that russia complies with treaties like new start, it is in violation of others like the i.n.f. and their compliance issues with open skies treaty. i'm concerned about these violations and look forward to hearing how we can strengthen our ability to verify and enforce their terms. there are legitimate questions about the value of such accords as russia wantonly disregards its international commitments. this should not lead us to the conclusion that all arms control agreements should be ripped up. while not perfect, these agreements afford us some visibility into russia's intentions. i want to underscore the importance of these treaties to our allies, especially open skies, as we seek to bolster

european unity in the face of russian aggression, pulling out of open skies would send the wrong message to our friends. what is often loss in russia's is howe behavior abroad, it treats its own people at home. the murder of boris yotsov is the most sobering example of the danger facing the opposition. we are honored to be joined by a prominent member of the political opposition who was poisoned in moscow under suspicious circumstances and spent months in a coma. vladimir thank you for your courage and all you do for the people of the russian federation. new laws targeting foreign agents which label n.g.o.'s as traitors of the russian state have impeded the work of foundations like the mcarthur foundation. putin has fueled corruption by

weakening the rule of law and his associates know their fortunes depend on access and allegiance to the regime. those who make public these corrupt acts are threatened, abused or even worse. sergei nitsky was one of them and he paid the ultimate bryce. -- he paid the ultimate price for honesty. the law targets human rights abusers inside russia. while 40 people have been sanctioned since 2012, i call on the administration to hold accountable more human rights abusers in the country. as human right violations increase, so should our response. in summary, russia under putin is a kleptocratic regime. we have shared interests with the russian regime and we need to pursue them but we can never forget our principles and turn a blind eye to human rights violations committed by the putin regime. mr. chairman, again, thank you for convening this hearing and i

look forward to hearing from our witnesses. senator corker: we do appreciate our witnesses being here. i don't think we've had so many people on the outside of the building trying to get in, so it's obviously something people care about. we thank the honorable victoria newland, assistant secretary of state for the bureau of european and eurasian affairs for being here, we look forward for your testimony. dr. michael carter, assistant secretary for russia and eurasia. you've been here before, if you can summarize, we read your written submission already. we look forward to the questions that follow. ms. newland: thank you for the opportunity to join you and and thethe challenges administration's policy toward moscow. for more than 20 years, following this ecollapse of the soviet union, the united states has sought to build a

constructive relationship with russia and to support that country's greater integration into regional and global institutions and the rules-based international order. our working assumption in doing this was that a more integrated, democratic, secure, an prosperous russia would be a safer, more predictable and willing partner for the united states and our allies. by 2014, however, we had no choice but to re-evaluate our assumptions following russia's invasion of sovereign ukrainian territory, first in crimea and then in eastern ukraine, which shattered any remaining illusions about this kremlin's willingness to abide by international law or live by the rules of the institutions that russia joined at the end of the cold war.

our approach to russia today seeks first to deter further aggression through the projection of strength and unity with our allies. second to build resilience and reduce as a rule neblet among friends and allies -- vulnerability among friends and allies facing russian coercion. third to cooperate on core security priorities when our interests and russia's do align. and fourth to sustain tie toths -- ties to the russian people to preserve the potential for constructive relationship in the future. first, strength and deterrence. to counter the threat posed by russian aggression and deter any military moves against nato territory, over the past two years, the united states and our nato allies have maintained a persistent rotational military presence on land, sea, and air, all along nato's eastern edge, the baltic state, poland, bulgaria. as we look toward the nato summit in warsaw this coming july, allies will institutionalize a more sustained approach to deterrence, including by enhancing forward presence in the east to reduce response times to any aggression.

to support this commitment, the president has requested $3.4 billion to fund the european reassurance initiative. with your support, these funds will be used to deploy an additional rotational armored brigade combat team to central and eastern europe and for prepositioning of combat equipment as well as additional trainers and exercises in europe. to press moscow and fully implement its commitments we g-7 orked with the e.u., and other nations to impose sanctions on russia over the past two years and we are now working with europe to ensure that sanctions are rolled over at the end of this month and to support france and germany in their lead diplomatic role to push for the full complementation including the

withdrawal of all russian forces from ukraine. next resilience of partners. even as we defend nato territory we are working to reduce the vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of those countries across europe that face pressure from moscow. the united states has committed over $600 million. we have trained 1700 conventional forces and national guard personnel, counter artillry and radars, and a number of other pieces of equipment to help troops successfully resist further advances and to save lives. to continue our work across europe to strengthen democratic institutions reform economies fight corruption and build the resilience of our partners we ve requested $787 million in fy 17 focusing on our

priorities on those countries that are most vulnerable to russian pressure. our programs and advisers focus on improving governance, squeezing out fraud, strengthening justice systems, hardning border security and homeland defenses and building energy independence to make countries more independence. we are developing intelligence cooperation to detect and blunt russia's covert and oveert efforts to manipulate the internal politics of european countries. even as we push back against russian aggression and support neighbors under pressure the united states will continue to look for areas where our interests and moscows align. we have worked with russia, for example, to remove chemical weapons, prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and

to negotiate and implement the new start treaty. over the past 8 months secretary kerry has led multilateral efforts to try to resolve the crisis in syria, establishing the international syria support groups and forging a critical agreement on a cessation of hostility which is has reduced violence even as that agreement is is tested every single day. these requirements have required hard-headed diplomacy with russia and we continue to call on the kremlin to bring its influence on the assad regime, to prevent civilian casualties and end barrel bombing. finally, we must continue to engage directly with those russian individuals, businesses, and organizations who want to work with us, who share our interests and values, and who are working for a better future for their country. despite moscow's crackdown, our

exchange programs and our scientific cooperation remain hugely popular with the russian people. we will also continue to speak out against laws and policies that impede the work of russian civil society and extra vene the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly. the approach that i have just outlined is not without challenges and contradictions. i will not claim that it has yet brought annd to russian aggression in ukraine or moscow's support for the assad regime. however, i am convinced that u.s. and allied unity regarding russia over the last two years has been essential to deterring even worse behavior to protecting our own security and to bringing the kremlin to the table on critical issues from ukraine to iran to syria. thank you very much for your

attention. >> thank you. >> chairman corker, ranking member carden, members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to update you on the department of defense's strong and balanced approach to deterring russian aggression, defending the homeland and our treaty allies and stronetsdzning the resilience russian's s to disregard. in syria, russia has intervened militarily to prop up a murderous dictator, allying itself with the iranian guard corps and hezbollah. raising troubling question about russian leaders commitment to strategic stability and threat of use of

nuclear weapons. russia's record has been mixed. it has violated those agreements that impose impediments to its plan such as the treaties or the intermeet range forces treaty. however, it has honored others uch as the new start treaty. thanks to a robust military modernization program russia seeks to be a qualitative if not quantitative peer to the united states across the land, sea, and air and space dome mains. in addition to in cyber space and across the electro magnetic spectrum. our approach to countering russian coercion and aggression, strengthen our capabilities, plan, we aim to do this without foreclosing the possibility of working with russia when it is in our interests.

e most critical element is effecting deterrence. defense of the homeland. we are modernizing our forces. this incluneds new long-range strategic bomber, ballistic missile submarine, air launch cruise missile as well as life extension program for the b-61 gravity bomb. we are also moving forward the development of new technologies to maintain an edge over adversaries. these include new unmanned systems, ground based air and missile defense systems. anti-launch systems, new systems for warfare space and cyber space. we will also continue to strengthen our alliances and partnerships. i thank congress for its

continued support. as the assistant secretary has mentioned, eri has enabled the department of defense to strengthen our missions in europe. the president's fiscal year 2017 budget proposes quadrupling funding which will allow us to increase our force posture in europe by augmenting two permanently stationed brigade combat teams with an additional armored gct as well as a fourth prepositioned warfighting equipment. with our nonnato partners our goal is to improve their capacity to deal with threats. in you're crane we have provided over $600 million to enhance securities since the start of the crisis. our support has consisted of training programs to enhance ukraine's internal defense capabilities, equipment to support the operational needs of its security forces, and advise torse advance the

implementation of key defense or forms. so far we have trained six companies from ukraine's national guard and five land forces ballot lans or rather in e process of training five blatlns. while our scale is unique, we are engaged in similar efforts with other nonnato partners such as georgia and mold ovea. as secretary carter has underscored, predicated on a strategic approach both strong and balanced leaving the door open to russia to return to compliance with its international norms and engagement with the community. in the meantime, in concert with our allies and partners we will continue countering this with a posture that is defensive and proportional. we will also continue to advance our strategic vision of a europe whole, free and at peace.

>> we met briefly prior to this hearing. there's a narrative out there that the u.s. and nato pressured russia by expanding to areas of obviously adjacent to their border. and that is what is generating some of the discord that exists between our countries. you were involved in those. if you would give us a brief summary of your view of that. >> thank you, senator. i completely reject this narrative that it is somehow our fault. as you know, nato is a defensive alliance. as we said, we are not a threat to russia in any way. as we through the various expansions of nato we sought

also to deepen nato's own relationship with russia the first through the creation and then the nato-russia council. i was active in those efforts both in negotiating and as ambassador to try implement those agreements. i think russia did not take advantage of the opportunity. we could have gotten to a place with a different attitude in the kremlin where much of the affirmative security that we were seeking in europe and we were seeking against terrorists and with regard to dangerous iranian behavior could have been done jointly in that structure but we could never get there because of old efforts. also, in the odd years we reached out to russia quite strongly to try to work together on missile defense system to try to cooperate and the kremlin was never willing or able to take us up on those opportunities. so i regret very much that we are where we are but i really

do think that we tried very hard on the u.s. side across three administrations of both parties to reach out and we will continue to try to do that. >> thank you. i reserve the rest of my time. > to defend ourselves from russia's behavior and aggression, it would be nice to know why they're doing what they're doing. since 2008 they have used their military in an aggressive way to violate the sovereignty of other countries. can you share what russia's game is here? are you r they trying to become greater? take on more territory? recreate the soviet union? what is their game plan here? >> i would simply say that as a u.s. official i don't think it's particularly productive to try to speak for russia but i would just highlight some of the thing that is russia's

president himself has said. i point to his speech at the munich security conference in 2007 where he very much regretted the loss of control over soviet space, the loss of control over the failure -- the end of the soviet union, so clearly that is something on his mind. but i would defer that question to russia, frankly. >> it is not safe to be in the political opposition these days in russia. what is the administration oing to help political parties in russia in regards to those opposing the putin regime? well, obviously we continue to speak out strongly whenever russia takes news to further constrain the space for the nongovernmental organizations to restrict human rights.

as i said in my opening to constrain press freedom. we are worked with vladmir and other whose are seeking a different future for russia. we have programs both inside and outside russia to work with those russian activists who want to work with us to try to strengthen rule of law to try to strengthen a free press. we have a large number of russian journalists who have actually fled russia now who are working with us and others in europe to try to ensure there is independent russian language news inside going back into the country. we also work on lgbt rights and other things inside russia with those who want to work with us. >> i will follow up with questions for the record but let me move to the arctic for one moment. climate change is changing the arctic with the ice melts. russia has 4,000 miles of arctic coastline. it is my understanding they

have established six new bases north of the arctic circle and they have deployed certain weapons systems there. what are we doing to respond to russia's militarization of the arctic? >> well, you are absolutely right that russia has invested significantly in capabilities in the arctic over the last several years including trying to create infrastructure in places in parts of the russian arctic. we seek to preserve the arctic as a space for cooperation on scientific issues as we have. in fact with russia in the past, working on things like black carbon and the danger that it poses to the arctic environment as well as other issues. however, we take very seriously russia's advancing capabilities in the arctic including the possibility that over time russia will be able to create the arctic elements of area

bubbles, if you will, that will preclude other nations to enjoy their freedom of navigation in parts of the arctic. so we are investing in the types of capabilities that will allow us to augment our force posture in the arctic and also develop the sorts of capabilities that will help us to ensure freedom of navigation and freedom of flight for our troops in that region. >> i take it we're working with our other arctic partners to try to minimize the potential here of conflict. but it does seem like russia's investing an awful lot in territorial claims in the arctic. >> well, senator, we do have a good working relationship with russia in the arctic council where we try to preserve those

areas of cooperation that are ongoing, including environmental cooperation but also importantly our coast guard has a search and rescue agreement with its russian counter part that has worked very successfully over the years. so we seek to preserve these areas of cooperation but at the same time develop our own military capability soss that we are not caught off guard so that we are keeping track with the types of investments that russia is making. >> thank you. i will be asking other question force the record including russia's aggressiveness in revising history and using its communications to try to change e narrative of what is reality and how we're trying to counter that. propaganda can have a strong impact and part of our strategy must be to help people understand the facts. i would welcome your response for the record in regard tho

those issues. thank you. >> thank you. >> with the debt crisis we have and the popularity of your hearings i think we might start charging tickets here. in all seriousness though i really thank you for this and i hope we will have many more like this about russia and china. the rise of these traditional rivals are really concerning to people back home. i would like to talk about russia and i have a second follow-up. but i want to talk about georgia. i want to know what lessons we think we have learned after eight years. the russians have had a history of creating these frozen conflicts where without a peace treaty everything seems to be going normal. then next year, in one of their regions, they're rumored to be having a referendum about joining russia again. so this is a pressure that russia keeps putting on there. james clapper, the director of

national intelligence testified that the nation of georgia despite all its progress on western immigration and reforms is at increasing risk from russian aggression and pressure. i visited serbia last year and met the georgian defense and her concerns about the ongoing pressure. what lessons have we learned? i know international georgia and u.s. national guard has had a forward deployment there. i would like to get some feedback. also what are we doing now from a d.o.d. standpoint to put pressure on russia relative to , what and what lessons have we learned there relative to crimea and the ukraine? >> well, thank you, senator. and i completely agree with your assessment that russia is

continuing to place pressure on georgia through a variety of different means. russia currently occupies about 20% of georgian territory. >> a third of the population. right? >> it's a significant portion of the population. and those administrative boundry lines that russia maintains continue to shift, especially in the south region claiming ever more pieces, increments of georgian territory. russia is also putting pressure on georgia in a variety of other ways including this proclaimed desire by the leader de facto leader of to have a referendum on immigration with russia. our goal since the russian invasion of georgia since 2008 has been to build russia's resilience and reduce its vulnerabilities to russian coercion. so we have spent on security assistance in georgia since the crisis. just recently two weeks ago, i

was there to participate in the noble partner exercise that we conduct with georgia where we had about 650 u.s. troops alongside about 500 georgian troops and 150 u.k. troops where we had airborne jumps into georgia and we had abe rams tanks as well as bradley infantry, fighting vehicles on the ground helping them to develop their self-defense capabilities. over the course of the last ten years, georgia has contributed might mightly to our nato efforts overseas including especially in afghanistan where up until recently they have been the second largest troop contributor after the united states with 850 troops. in fact, they have suffered about 32 casualties, about 282 wounded. so they have had major sacrifices there. and a lot of our training program over the course of the last decade has been focused on preparing georgian troops for these overseas deployments

including iraq and then later afghanistan. now we are starting to position ourselves to devote more attention to training up georgia's troops for their self-defense capabilities. >> do we have permanent troops on the ground in georgia? >> we don't plan to have permanent troops on the ground but we do plan to increase the tempo of our exercises and training with georgia. >> what lessons have we learned relative to georgia as it relates to crimea and the ukraine? were senator, i think the first one is the one that drrpt carpenter highlighted which is that we with our security partnership with georgia spent a lot of the last decade helping georgian forces prepare for expeditionary deployments to afghanistan et cetera and probably not enough focus on strengthening georgia's own homeland security which is what we are now trying to correct and not just as -- in u.s.-georgia relations but also in nato-georgia relations. the other lesson is the abiding

one which has significant applicability for ukraine, which is that the best antidote to russian pressure is successful increasingly european democratic georgia or ukraine. and to take maximum advantage of the association agreement that is both of these countries have with europe. so that's why all of the programs that we manage from the state department are designed to squeeze out corruption combrks prove justice. >> with due respect and i have all the respect in the world for you, i've watched you and i'm sorry i'm over time. but i walk away, i've been over there quite a bit and i walk away with the feeling that when we deal with russian ukraine, we deal with russian georgia. i don't mean to belittle this but it sounds like it's their fault. it's crimea, it's georgia's fault. because they're not as western as we want them to be. i know we've got corruption issues in ukraine,

westernization issues in georgia. but we have an invasion that occurred and sovereign territory and violation of agreement with russia. and yet we're talking about all this other stuff at the same level of the invasion issue. so i'm soshy to take issue with that. >> no question. we cannot blame the victim. i agree. we have to strengthen these countries so they can resist. >> thank you. >> senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i had an opportunity to meet with the russian ambassador earlier this year. referenced the difficult balance we try to strike between cooperating with the russians on a number of important areas, some of our bilateral treaties containing iran's aggressive nuclear weapons program and other areas where clearly we have strongly discord nt interests and where we're working to strengthen our allies in the face of russian

aggression. i came away from a meeting convinced that they will do everything they can to protect iran and their ballistic missile launches from action by the security council. am i wrong? what leverage do we have to sustain russian engagement in a concerted effort to put pressure on iran to stop some of its activities outside the jcpoa that really are destructive to iran's intentions or expressed desire to rejoin the community of nations? >> senator, i think you're not wrong in your assessment that russia has only joined us in joint work against a nuclear threat from iran. having worked with russia over many decades to try to encourage them to understand that that nuclear threat was a threat to russia, too. i would say that is the number one trajectory we have to work with regards to the missile threat now that russia shouldn't be so secure in its confidence that it couldn't be on the other end of said

missiles and therefore it has an interest in limiting or stopping iran's missile program. that's where we have to work and we are continuing to try. >> i would be interested dr. carp nter as well in hearing whether the initiative is jen winly working and whether our allies are confident and what else do you think we here in the congress can and should be doing to provide support across a whole range of areas of engagement as the senator mentioned? there are these frozen conflicts and now for at least time being in the ukraine. it is my hope and you've both worked very hard on this that the allies will be advancing and continuing sanctions and engage with us. what more can and should we do to strengthen our allies? >> well, thank you for that question, senator. i think the eri is working well and i think when we begin to implement the 2017 requested portions of the eri we will be

dramatically increasing our force posture on the eastern flank of the alliance which will have a significant deterrent impact on russia. it will also at the same time assure our allies that we have force posture that we have genuine high quality, high end warfighting equipment in place as necessary in the event of a crisis. i think the other piece to this that we cannot neglect is working with our nato allies to ensure that those allies also have skin in the game and so as we talk about augmenting nato's presence in these countries a lot of what we are doing under eri bilaterally with each of these allies in the east. but as we talk about increasing nato's footprint i think we will be in a better place to have other allies with skin in the game and with additional assets that they can bring to bear which they uniquely possess because of their proximity to some of these countries that will greatly aid in deterring russia in case it thinks about potential

aggressive action in any one of these countries. >> my last question as we look forward to the nato summit. have we done everything we need to to brace up and shore up and fully engage our allies to provide that deterrent impact so that we then have a chance at meaningful diplomacy? and how do you assess putin's willingness to engage in rational diplomacy around the ukraine conflict? >> two big questions. just to add to what dr. carpenter has said on the battlic states. two pieces here. as i said in the opening, we over the past two years have had sort of an ad hoc approach to put a presence together. what you will see at the war saw summit is a sustained approach so that these allies can be confident that they will have regular persist btnt support and to make that much more routine and normal to make

joint head quarters and to ensure we can get there. the other thing on the battle i cans that i think deserve highlights is he we worked on the resilience. border security, integrated communications across domestic agencies. we've had our homeland security folks out there and made a pretty good progress. but we need other allies to be as vigorous and rigorous in their support and we are working on that as we head towards war sau. in regard to russia's willingness to negotiate with regard to ukraine, there is an agreement on the table, the mincic agreement which is call for a ceasefire across eastern ukraine. then a political package of decentralization for the people and then the withdrawal of weapons. so the french and germans have taken the lead in trying to see that implemented.

we have in the last month-and-a-half greatly increased the role the u.s. is playing in parallel working in both kiev and moscow. i think our concern is whereas we are making some progress now on the political package for the area we have not made the kind of progress that we need to see on the security piece and we are going to have to do a lot more to push russia and the separatists to end the violence to allow the osc fully in. >> i thank you for your willingness to testify here today. >> thank you very much. senator brasso. >> good to see you again. i wanted to talk about the intermediate range nuclear forces treaties. russia has been violating the treaty for quite some time. it was finally made official in public in 2014. in response to questioning on the matter the administration said they were exploring economic counter measures in response to the violation. in the president's speech back in april of 2009 in prague, he

committed to ridding the world of nuclear weapons. he said that in order for a nonproliferation regime to work he said violations must be punished and he said words must mean something. president obama. words must mean something. this administration has now said for years that they are considering economic sanctions against russia for its violation of the treaty. is russia still in violation of that treaty? and when is the administration finally going to get around to punishing this violation of the treaty? as you have said, we have found russia in violation over the last stwo years. we are engaged in discussions negotiations with russia to try to bring them back into compliance. we are also working with allies to bring pressure to bear on russia with regard to the violations. we are also working intensively and this is part of our package to ensure that nato's own

deterrent including its nuclear deterrent is updated and strong. we are and this is about all i can say at this point in an open hearing. we are reviewing and working on a full range of options, a full range of options to make sure that russia cannot gain any significant military advantage from any system that they might develop outside of the treaty. and we are also investing in u.s. technologies that are designed to deter and defeat any russian provocations. but i think going further than that we would have to be in another setting. >> in that line of thought with what we could do. the open skies treaty according to the state department reports on arms control compliance russia is failing to meet its obligations on the open skies treaty. it is restricting access to some of its territories. it has shown a repeated pattern of violating its obligations

including the intermediate range nuclear forces. so it is now asking that the open skies commission for permission to use more powerful collection capabilities on flights over the united states. to me it says that the u.s. shouldn't be approving such a request for these upcoming -- these requested sensors. at least make it contingent upon russia making it coming into full compliance with the treaties. i would be interested in your thoughts. >> well, you are not wrong russia has been restricting some overflights. there is a list of places where they have been restricting open skies flights. they had been restricting open skies flights over chechnya in the last couple of weeks. they have reopened that territory in part zue to the pressure we have been able to bring to bear from other open skies treaty partners particularly the europeans who

highly value this. i think you know that the first round of russian requests for higher definition cameras were within the constraints of the treaty. and so from that perspective were we to unilaterally restrict those flights we could just expect they would do the same to us and that would make us less capable ourselves. with regard to their more recent requests for really potent visuals, we are still reviewing that internally. i don't know if dr. carpenter has anything to add on that. we can certainly brief you in a closed setting. >> i would just add that to answer your yes, senator, yes russia is in violation of its treaty requirements. not to produce deploy or flight test ground launch cruise than with a range more

5,500 clomenters. we are looking at this more so we in russia's bare are taking a number of steps being taken in that broader context to include expanding and modifying air defense systems together with our allies. we are also looking at investments so we are taking a in advanced capability that is will allow us to defend against complex cruise missile threats. on the open skies issue, i would just associate myself with everything that the assistant secretary had said. the treaty process already provides a way forward for certification of the electro optical camera that is now being in use as films go out of business essentially. so our ability to use this same sensor down the road is impacted by the decision that is we take today. >> that's the followup. in terms of security risk. you said umented to take

additional security risks for our country on this. there there additional security risks and vulnerabilities if these new types of sensors are allowed on open sky aircrafts for us? >> i'm comfortable with the decision that is we have already made. we are reviewing exactly this set of issues as we look at the next set of requests from russia. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. senator menendez. >> madam secretary, for some context to my question. let me summarize current events as i see it. as russia's september 18 primary particle tri election draws closer the kremlin is preparing the groundwork for another victory of putin's united russia party. the current duma itself a product of the corrupt legislation has set new laws from competing campaigning and observation to authorizing police forces to open fire on protesters. the state-sponsored ballot stuffing that sparked those

moscow protests in 2011 is no evolved. the kremlin and the duma are instead barring opposition from registering now. pro government individual lantest have set up attacks on opposition. putin himself has repeatedly implicated in political assassinations and attempts as with boris anymore shoff shot outside the kremlin dead outside the kremlin or a witness here who was poisoned near to death. the flames of nationalism are burning as bright as putin combspeerl adventures seem to be part of a campaign to make russia great again. whether in ukraine where with the exception of congressional sanctions that i and others helped author and pass through this committee and congress pass in 2014 the administration has done relatively little to hold russia accountedable in

meaningful material ways or in syria where we have been having to coordinate with russian forces who neither share common interests nor pursue common goals while hundreds of thousands have died and millions have been displaced. or at the u.n. where they have resist sanctions on iran for missile violations or resolutions which they supported or their violation of the treaty for which two years we have had discussions but no consequences. so i worry that the message that putin must be taking from ur responses is that his limit testing aggression and opportunityism is a right approach particularly when there are relatively negligible consequences at the end of the day for all of the things that i have listed among others. and this is certainly a dry run for the presidential 2018 elections in russia where we

would certainly expect putin to continue to take advantage of the opportunities that he sees whether that's the arbitrary violation of international borders treaties, human rights compacts or whatever he decides that suits his personal interests at the time. so i am trying to get a grasp of, we push the ukrainions really hard to meet their four pillars. but on the security side and the minsk agreement we are failing dramatically but we keep pushing the ukrainions. we don't even talk about crimea any more. that is i guess gone. we have this violation of the inf treaty yet there are no consequences two years later despite whatever engagement and conversations are to bring them back. why aren't we more aggressively engaging in tools of diplomacy that can help us hopefully help russia understand that there are consequences?

why aren't we using the osc which clearly they are a signatory to and have clear violations? why aren't we looking at more visa denials? why aren't we looking at more frozen accounts? why aren't we looking at more liftings? i don't get it. because if everything of what you are doing -- and i heard your testimony and i read it before i came in. i wanted to listen to it again, is still leaving you in the place that we are. why is it that we don't seem to step up towards the challenge hat we have? >> senator, i would not take issue with anything that you have said here with regard to the constraining of space inside of russia and rampup to the elections and russian external behavior. i would take issue with whether russia is paying a price for this. we talked about the commission sanction that is this committee has supported over the last two years. i think russia has paid a steep price not simply through sanctions but also through its

overdependence on oil. we now have russians 13.4% of russians living below the poverty line. we have g.d.p. contraction of 3.7% in russia in 2015. >> i have 18 seconds. why not -- answer my core question. why not more visa denials? why not more liftings? why not more refusal to u.s. banks as we'll hear witnesses say don't let shizz ill-gotten gains of his cronies end up in the united states. why aren't we pursuing all of those? >> well, we are working on all of those things, as you know every year we add names to the list. the legislation is relldelivel straining. it has to go to that particular case. but we have denied a number of visas in the context of ukraine sanctions, in the context of syria sanctions and we are look at who more we can and should do. >> senator. >> thank you both of you for being here today. i want to follow up on what

senator menendez just talked about. and that is consequences of bad behavior. this past week a number of us had the opportunity to visit southeast asia where we visited with ministers from sing pore government leaders and myanmar to new leadership in taiwan, participated in the shangri-la dialogue. when meeting with foreign governmentings, when meeting with leaders they talk about u.s. leadership. and they talk about the positions that we are trying to secure, positions that we are fighting for. like the south china seas. and when we are asking them to take a tough line perhaps on something like the south china sea they see our lack of consequences in other circumstances and question whether or not they should take a hard-lined position against powerful nation or a situation such as their neighbor china. and so we can't look at things

in isolation as how we are responding to russia, because it affects what is happening and what is on people's minds in asia and southeast eesha. in singapore. it's people around the globe are looking at our lack of response and lack of consequence and decide wloog the u.s. is somebody that they should hitch their wagon to so to speak or not. and i think that's a great challenge. so whether it is crimea, ukraine, syria, georgia they don't see the consequences. when we ask them to take a tough position, they don't see the reason why they should because they know the united states isn't going to follow through. and that is hurting our leadership around the globe and it is hurting our ability to rally our allies to our side and to create the kind of rules-based order that we need to in order to counter the behavior of china, the behavior of russia. and so i guess a couple questions. in your testimony you state that we have worked with russia to remove syria's declared

chemical weapons, to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to detain the threat from north korea and to negotiate and implement the new start treaty. obviously i think you would agree that the nuclear threat in north korea has not been contained. is that correct? >> it has not. >> so what is it that we're actually getting russia to accomplish? are they following through with the implementation of united nations resolutions 2270? the bill against north korea? >> as you know in the context of these latest rounds of sanctions we had difficult conversations but we were able to get russia to join a deeper regime against north korea than we have had in the past. we will -- and they had particular interests that they wanted managed there. but we did better than some expected because of the pressure from the asian allies. >> are they completely implementing 2270? >> i frankly don't have the details. my understanding is that in the

broad strokes they are. whether they are in detail i would have to do more work. >> what is their position on that? south korea? >> russia has traditionally opposed the advanced air defense capability that is we provide to allies both in europe as well as in east asia. >> and what is their position? let's just say they're teaming up with china on thad and our efforts to contain the nuclear threat from north korea. what are they doing in sortsdze areas? are they teaming up with chineand the freedom of navigations efforts as well and opposing our efforts to provide rules-based governance? >> i don't see them teaming up with china on freedom of navigation. although clearly the chinese and other great powers are watching to see what russia is able to get away with.

>> so their operations in the south china sea -- have they? >> has russia supported our -- >> correct. >> no. >> so they're taking the same position as china. >> i would characaterize it as they have not taken a vocal position one way or the other. they have largely remained in the background on this. >> so while i'm with you i guess i would just follow up. and we can have that conversation as well in terms of what we are doing to push russia to agree to a true commitment to a nuclear-free peninsula. i want to talk about a report that came out several months ago. this is the rand report looking at an article here that says russian invasion could overrun nato in 60 hours. this was published in february 2016. i am sure you are familiar with this report. has this assessment changed in your mind? since this report was first

published? >> senator, i would say that russia clearly possesses a time distance advantage if it were to decide to be an aggressor in the battlic states and that that poses certain limitations that we would have to overcome in terms of our ability to defend our nato allies. that we are making the investments precisely to have forces prepositioned along with war-fighting equipment. so that we are better able to de ter russian aggression in the first place. >> has this changed since the report came out in february? >> we have done a number of our own internal exercises and reviewed our plans and we have looked very carefully at the geography of the battlic basin in precisely that advantage that russia possesses and we are taking steps to try to mitigation. >> so what are you saying is basically nothing has changed

since this report. are you saying that your reports agree with the rand report? >> i would say that by the end of 2017 when we implement all of the eri funding that is coming on line that we will be much better poised to address the challenges and deter russian aggression in that region than we are now. >> so the end of 2017 until we are better poised to deter the russian threat. >> well, we are prepositioning equipment on a -- an on going basis. i don't know that we are significantly more advanced now than when the rand report came out but i am confident by the end of 2017 when we have an additional armored brigade combat team on the eastern flank that we will be. >> thank you. >> thank you senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you both for being here and for your ongoing efforts. as part of russia's campaign in

eastern europe and the ball tics and ukraine has been to produce disinformation. they're spending a lot of money on television and lots of other ways to get their message out and into parts of eastern europe. can you talk a little bit more about what we're doing to respond to that propaganda? i don't know which one of you wants to address that. >> thanks, senator. as you know, this has been a line of effort that we have been working on very hard with members of the congress and the senate since 2014. the total appropriation now state department u.s. aide, bbg, broadcast board of governors, on the u.s. side is about $100 million to counter russian propaganda. that money as you know goes through a number of things from clean honest russian language programming that bbg is now

putting out every day. the expansion of radio free europe to about $88 million that we use in state department and aid money to support civil society independent media journalist training, including outside russia for those russian journalists who have fled. we are also doing quite a bit to bolster programming inside russia to the extent that we can. but this pails in comparison to the 400 million at least that russian is spending and frankly to the levels that we spent during the cold war on these kinds of things which were over $1 billion a year in the days of old u.s. aid. >> can you talk about the substance of what we are doing and who we are engaging and working with us on the content. is it journalists or reporters who have fled russia who are helping us look at what kind of

messages we're using? are there others who are ngaged in that effort with us? >> i will be 30,000 feet, if you will allow me to protect those who participate in those programs many of whom depend on that protection. but we conduct training programs at various locations in europe for journalists who have either fled or come out to get training and are planning to go back in. we support a number of russian language news organizations in the ball tic states and in other periphery countries that are designed either to address russian-speaking populations in those home countries and counter russian propaganda or to, back in we support russian programming in ukraine which has impact also in russia as well. and then this good portion that goes to bbg and doa programming

which is u.s. government free news content. we also do quite a bit to pull together efforts of the eu, u.k., battlic states, central europeans through consultation through sharing of programming et cetera. >> thank you. you raised ukraine and obviously there's been a number of questions around what's happening in ukraine and russia's failure to comply with minsk 2 and there was a period where there were some countries in europe that didn't seem to appreciate the extent to which this is a failure on russia's part and more a failure of ukraine. i wonder if you can talk about where we are with respect to how the e.u. is viewing minsk 2 at this point and what more we can do to put pressure on russia to comply. >> as i said in my opening, i think we are cautiously

optimistic that the e.u. countries will again roll over sanctions at the end of june because they see what we see. namely that minsk is far from being implemented in any of its components. we have intensified our own diplomacy after the president's meeting in hanover with president holland and chancellor merkel to support what those countries are doing to try to get minsk fully complied with. they are pushing on two fronts both to negotiate a fair political decentralization deal for donbass which does not cross over the line of creating a cat's paw or a permanent enclave of russia in ukraine. at the same time, we are trying to get the commitment that is russia and done bass made for full access, pullback of can weapons implemented. as i said at one point it is this security package that is not being implemented well.

we've had a sharp spike in attacks over the last six weeks in particular. and we've had a conscious blinding of the osce disabling of cameras shootdown by separatists of two osce, uav's. so in both our own advocacy at every level, the president, the secretary, my work with president putin's advisor on this work we are calling this out. so we are working on it very hard. i think the point is for ukraine to fulfill its obligations and then we test whether russia was ever seer yuss about these agreements. >> my time is up. senator rubio. >> secretary, let me read you a quote here from the same individual. he said russia has chosen to be an adversary, poses a long term threat to the united states and

european allies and partners. russia doesn't want to just change the agreed rules. it wants to rewrite them. is that your assessment of the state of rashe today under vladmir putin? >> i don't have a problem with that characterization at all. >> let me ask about ukraine. a ukrainian activist wrote about minsk 2. he called it a farce. while russia does nothing to implement the agreement the u.s. and the eu are forcing minsk 2 down the throat of kiev and putin knows it is much easier for the west to put pressure on ukraine to accept bad terms than forge a consensus on keeping the pressure including sanctions on russia. i seem to share those views given the fact that it appears that russia is perfectly comfortable with what they view as a frozen conflict in the region. obviously what they're doing in syria is distracting attention. we don't talk about ukraine as much as we once did.

and syria. and part of the calculation putin had was that. but it is in fact a frozen situation. i walked in late when senator menendez was asking about this. but why is he wrong when he characaterizes it as a farce? why is he wrong when he characaterizes it as a situation where no one is pressuring russia to comply? but we're pressuring especially the germans to comply? >> the largest piece of leverage that we have on russia is the sustainment over two years of deep and comprehensive sanctions across the u.s. and the e.u. countries, japan, canada, et cetera. so again, this is why we are advocating because minsk has nots been host: plemented that sanctions have to be ruled over again. we are continuing to press as i said in response to senator shaheen's point that ukraine cannot be asked to vote on the

political decentralization pieces of minsk until the prior actions that are demanded in minsk, real ceasefire, real access throughout did you know bost has been complemented. so that is the frame that we are using. that's the frame that germany and france are using. i think ukraine does itself a service by being ready with text on an election law, being ready with special status, to implement when those agreed conditions are met. but russia has not either itself or with its clients in dunn bost gotten the security conditions meth. >> you're talking about the extension of the existing framework. why not increase sanctions? they have not complied with -- am i right in guessing or in stating that your argument is going to be that we don't want to go any further than our partners in europe are willing to go and they are not willing

to do additional sanctions? >> senator, i would say i was quite frat fid when the g-7 nations that met in japan just a couple of weeks ago made clear that we are ready to increase sanctions if we need to. the united states, as you know, not only maintains the sanctions but does regular maintenance to them to ensure that they can't be circumvented. we have done that on two occasions and we are prepared to do it again. >> could there an argument be made that this pain threshhold is something that putin is willing to accept this this clearly has not impacted his behavior. or do you argue that the sanctions have impacted his behavior? >> well, all i can tell you is we have deterred further land grabs in ukraine. and that was a real risk when we first started with sanctions, that they had try to run all the way to kiev. i will tell you that russians are openly talking now about the pain of sanctions, including when we work with them on the minsk thing.

so they know what it is going to take to get these sanctions rolled back and it's their choice whether they want to do what's necessary. >> what about crimea? how come we no longer hear crimea mentioned? is it a de facto matter of fact we just accept as reality? or does that continue to be part of our conversations? >> senator, i mentioned crimea here in my opening. secretary mentions it every time he speaks publicly in russia. we will maintain the crimea sanctions, which are significant both u.s. and eu until crimea is returned rightfully to ukraine. >> when they took over crimea there was a sense and i thought that it would be a boon doggle. that it would cost them a bunch of money to maintain that area. has this in fact turned out, other than the geostrategic advantage do we have the any idea how many resources they are having to maintain this now? >> it is our estimate that russia is spending billions of rubles trying to maintain its foothold in crimea. i think the most can concerning

factor though is that they are depurtsdzer militerizing crimea. dr. carpenter might want to speak to that. >> i would just say that absolutely that russia is militerizing crimea. they have put in very sophisticated a 2 ad capabilities there since the start of the conflict. >> thank you. >> welcome to both of you. thank you for taking so much time with us. i know that there was some conversation with senator purdue over the u.s.-georgia bilateral relationship. but i wanted to explore that relationship in the context of the upcoming nato summit. we are hopeful that we will continue on track to offer membership to monte negro. i think they are ready and it is an important signal that nato still has an open door policy for those that are ready and that in general

transatlantic institutions are still open for business despite the aggressive tactics of moscow. but the georgiaance are likely going to leave war sau disappointed. and the question remains whether there is any future for georgia inside nato while there is still a contest over these territories. what we know is that putin's ambition, i don't think -- what i believe that putin's ambition is not to militarily own ukraine. he wants to continue clouded title over a portion of that country so that eventually there becomes such economic and political tumult that a government is reinstalled in kiev that is much more friendly to moscow's interest. so it is in our interests to make it clear to the russians to the extent they are successful in ukraine or other places in the future that they are successful that it doesn't prevent those countries from

being eligible to join transatlantic institutions. so i am happy both of you are involved in this book of business. so talk to me about what the future of georgia's potential nato membership is. i am someone who supports at least a membership action plan for georgia. but -- and is concerned that without the settlement of these territorial questions georgia will forever be disappointed walk ago way from nato summit after nato summit. >> i think we expected the war sau summit that the alliance will reiterate the message that we've had to georgia since 2008 regarding our expectations of membership. one of the thing that is we are seeking to do as an alliance for georgia is reorient nato georgia relations, u.s. georgia relations away -- in security

terms away from simply preparing them to deploy with us from afghanistan and kosovo and much more on a focus of their homeland security needs their national defense resilience. so we are working on that. the best ant tote to russian pressure is a successful prosperous democratic georgia. that's why we work so hard with them on justice reform, on rule of law, on strong institutions, on market access. we're also encouraging georgia in its relationship with the european union as it implements the trade benefits of that to ach out to and make it possible for them through tab lissi to have the benefits of the trade relationship with europe. so that some day those parts of georgia may see stronger benefit from tab lissi than anything that is being offered by any external neighbor.

but you're absolutely right that it is essential for us to continue to be strong supporters of georgia's aspiration. >> let me ask a different question. you can answer this one as well if you would like. we've been obsessive in this place about military assistance for the ukrainions. there have been many members of the senate who have been disappointed. but it is not a coincidence that the une cranions have become much more effective at rebutting russian advances. and it is not a coincidence that this has happened during a time in which not withstanding a question over the future of jave lynn missiles we have been transporting important technology and training resources. there is a success story to tell here about the integration of the department of defense here and the ukrainian military which is part of the story as to why, while insufficient, the lines have been able to largely hold over a longer period of

time. can you talk to us a little bit about the success of the partnerships that we have had with the ukrainian military? >> yes. absolutely. thank you. so we have launched with ukraine a substantial training and equiping program. there is also an advisory component to this that is focused on defense reforms which is actually a fairly substantial effort. but the training equiping alone is hundreds of millions of dollars for this year. it is $335 million. and involved last year we were focused on the national guard which is within the ministry of interior. we trained six companies. now we are training ukraine's conventional armed forces as well as its operations forces. all told by the time this training package is completed we will have trained close to 3,000 ukrainian troops. and the results on the battlefield have been significant. a lot of the training process involved taking soldiers who have fought in the did you know bass forming new units.

we have trained them in western ukraine and we trained them in realistic conditions. we run them through basic skills where they learn marksmanship and how to in-place artillery up through more advanced techniques and then them out to where they are able to defend their territory. one of the best examples as you referenced, ukraine being able to hold the line came a year ago in june when the separatists launched a massive assault on the town of mar inca and you're cranions actually had the capability to detect surveillance by the russian separatists combined teams and push back, resulting in significant casualties on the other side. so i think our training and equiping program is very successful. we would like to be able to continue it thanks to support from congress for this effort through usai. and we are very proud of the work that our folks are doing from the 173rd as well as from

california national guard to run this program. with regards to -- if i could just tie this with regards to your earlier question about georgia. part of what we are trying to do now with georgia is to replicate some of the success that we've had with ukraine and to implement a training program that is not just focused on expeditionary operations that georgiaance perform in afghanistan, which are primarily counter insurgency focus, to training and equiping that is more focused on territorial defense. because that is something that clearly georgia needs as does ukraine after years of hollowed out military and mismanagement. three going to ask questions and i will submit the questions for the record for the second panel becauseically not stay to hear their answers to them. but first in your professional opinion, what would the likely effect on russian behavior be if the united states dramatically reduced or

withdrew its supported from nato? as a former ambassador to nato, i would say senator that that would be a strategic mistake for the united states. >> senator, i could think of no greater gift to russia and no greater strategic vulnerability for the united states and the euro atlantic area than that course of action. >> on the eve of the war sau ummit in early july, how concerned are european nato amliz about a potential change in the u.s. level of support or nato?

> obviously allies are watching the debate here in the united states with a lot of interest as they always do. in our conversations i think they find it very difficult to imagine that the united states would break a 70-year treaty commitment which has served us so well. >> senator, i will say that in my conversations and travels i have heard significant concern. but i think a lot of our partners believe that we will remain committed members of nato. in fact who play a leadership role in the alliance. >> in your professional opinion, is nato obsolete? >> nato is needed now more than ever. >> i couldn't agree more. >> i don't have any other questions.

>> i have no idea in what context those questions were asked. but i would just to follow up -- and i do very much appreciate you asking those. i know that we've had madeline albright here, we have had people of various persuasions in here. obviously the nato alliance is very important to us and very important to europe as is hopefully t tip over time where we end up economically tying our two sides of the ocean more closely together. what is it, on the other hand, that we can do to actually leverage our nato allies which, let's face it, we are a global entity. 70% of the defense resources are spent by the united states, 30% by them. i realize that we have other responsibilities around the world outside of nato. but what is it, what is the real leverage point to get for lack of a better word those who are somewhat being lag rds, if

you will, they are violating the treaty agreement, the 2% level of commitment? what is it that we do? we keep ringing our hands, keep pressuring both of us on both sides of the aisle talk with our counter parts in munich and other places where it continues to be the place where we are the provider of security services. we appreciate so much what they did to help us especially in afghanistan which is a very unusual circumstance. we appreciate their commitment but we still only have four countries that are honoring the monetary side of the treaty. >> i would say that combination of the kremlin and isil have motivated allies in a way that we hadn't seen for many years. as we head towards -- as you remember at the wales summit we got commitment from allies. 70% are meeting those commitments and i think we will be able to say that most allies are now increasing their defense budgets and that within

a few years we will have we will be in double digits on the number of allies who are at 2%. but we all have to continue to advocate and push and we have to create structures in nato as we are trying to do as we head towards war sau where the burden sharing is built in as the u.s. is more evident in some countries. others are more evident in other countries as we did with afghanistan. so we are going to continue to work on that but we very much value the advocacy that you all do when you are in europe on a bipartisan basis. it is very important for europe to know that burden sharing is expected by all americans. >> do you wish to add? >> i would just say that right now we have five allies including the united states that are at 2%. a couple things. one, there is an additional pledge of 20% of defense spending spent on capital investments and equipment which is very important to sustain the capabilities of the alliance going forward. so it's important to accentuate that as well.

i think we need to talk to allies about this each and every day. but the other point i want to make is having just come from a trip to the western balkans where i met with some of our allies there, they also do provide troops to some of the nato missions that we run in afghanistan and other places. and so it is important to remember that in addition to their defense spending, that a lot of our allies are also contributing troops to the fight. >> thank you. you all have been outstanding witnesses. people have gained a lot from your knowledge and your willingness to be here. the record will close on thursday. if you would respond to questions timely. i know you will. thank you for your service to our country and for being here to help us. and with that we will move to the second panel. thank you both very much.

we thank you both for being here. we have mr. david s att er from the hudson institute. mir karamoza. ad i know you were at an earlier hearing we had this year and all of us wanted to have you come back. we thank you for making the

effort to be here. so with that, if you would begin with about five minutes e would appreciate it. >> thank you, senator. i am very glad to be here. very anxious to talk about u.s.-russian relations. not only from the point of view of policies, treaties, and bilateral arrangements, but also very important question which informs all of the latter, which is the spirit of russia. oftentimes we make policy on the assumption that the spirit of russia is actually very little different from the spirit of the united states. this is one of the reasons why we often are surprised by

russian behavior. if we take it for granted that the leaders of a country are dedicated to the national interests and the welfare of the population of the country we find it hard to understand a country in which the leadership is totally indifferent to the welfare of the population. if we take it for granted that the human individualist is an end in itself, we find it hard to deal with a country in which individuals are raw material for the realization of the political goals of the political leaders. and many of those goals are very bizarre indeed. for this reason there is always a danger that we will mistake russian actions. one of the most important things to bear in mind about russia is that war is an instrument of internal policy.

the first chechen war was launched in order for there to be a short victorious war that would boost the rating of at that point president yeltsin who was suffering because of the after effects of privatization and the impoverishment of the population. the war proved to be neither short nor victorious. the second chechen war was undertaken in order to guarantee the secession to yeltsin. and this is one of the most important episodes of russian history, also one about which americans are very much in the dark. a terrorist act took place. it was used to justify a new war in chechnya. yeltsin, -- putin, who was very little known became the prime minister, took charge of that war, and on the strength of the successful prosecution of that war was elected president.

later, the bombs that were laced began to appear very suspicious. a fifth bomb was found in the city of reezen outside of moscow, and the persons who put it in the basement of that building turned out to be not chechen terrorists, but actually agents of the fsb. the war broke out again as a esult of the events in ukraine where a self-organizing anti-criminal revolution demonstrated to the russian people potentially how it might be possible to resist the clepto cratic authorities who were in charge in their own country. a massive in effect diversionry effort was made to distract russians from the true lessons of euro miden. d when the resistance of the

ukrainions proved greater than the russians expected, a new diversionry operation was launched in syria to distract the russian population from hat was going on in ukraine. under these circumstances, one of the most important things that the united states can do is reinforce the deterrence to using war in this manner. and also to make renewed efforts to reach the russian people about the true activities and motivations of their authorities so that they're not just unwitting instruments in the hands of their leaders but are in a position finally to make their leaders answer to them. this is the intellectual challenge that faces american

policy and over and above and complimentry to the challenge of strengthening the purely practical aspects of deterrence on which in fact european stability and world stability depend. >> thank you very much for that. >> thank you very much, chairman, ranking member, senators. thank you for holding this mportant and timely hearing. thank you for the opportunity to testify and to appear before you today. 25 years ago, at a conference held of all places in moscow, member states of the organization for security and cooperation europe established as a principle that issues relating to democracy human rights and the rule of law, and i quote, are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating states and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the state

concerned. to its membership, the russian federation has undertaken clear and binding commitment to election standards, freedom of expression, assembly and other important aspects of human rights. in all these principles also enshrined in the russian constitution. in its 16 years nearly a full generation in power, vladmir putin's regime has turned these commitments and principles into a dead letter. today election in our country serve as a mere ritual for the incumbents with any meaningful opposition in most cases simply disqualified from the ballot and voting marred by intimidation and fraud. after march 2000, more than 16 years, not a single national election in russia has been assessed by free and fair by observers. according to independence estimates up to 14 million votes were stolen in favor of the ruling party in 2011. which was followed by the

largest demonstrations under putin's rule as more than 100,000 people went to the streets of moscow to protest against fraud. in preparations for this vote, certainly are not promising. with new restrictions imposed, and with the establishment of a new national guard, that will be allowed to use force and shoot without warning in the event of mass demonstrations. for more than a decade now the russian parliament has been void of genuine opposition. not a place for discussion in the unforgettable words of the speakers. the same applies to most media outlets. after taking over or shutting down independent television networks in the early rule of mr. putin's rule the kremlin now controls all air waves which it uses to rail against the outside world especially the west and ukraine as well as his political opponents at home denounced as traitors, foreign agents and enemies of russia.

the few surviving pockets of media independence are under severe pressure. as we saw following the coverage of the panama papers. the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts are used by the kremlin as tools for suppressing and punishing dissent. according to memorial, russia's most respected human rights organization there are currently 87 political prizz anywheres in our country. a number comparable to the previous era. these include the brother of ant corruption campaign. pposition activists. and the remaining hostage of the hugh gross case and prisoners of the case jailed merely for the fact that they came u out on the streets to protest against mr. putin's inauguration in may 2012. but those who oppose his regime

risk not only their well being and their freedom but they also risk their lives. on the 27th of february of last ear, boris anymore soff former op potion was killed by five bullets in the back as he walked home over the bridge. just 200 yards from the kremlin wall. a year on the investigation into his murdser stalling. although they have apprehended the alleged perpetrators, they have been unable to pursue the organizers and master mindse. media reports, attempt to track were personally vetoed by the general head of russia's investigative committee. and despite the obvious links between the murder suspects and kremlin eep pointed chechen leader, he hasn't been even formally questioned in the case. i can also speak to the dangers that face opposition activists

in russia from personal experience. exactly one year ago in moscow i fell into a coma as a result of severe poisoning that led to multiple organ failure certainly intended to kill. in fact doctors told my wife who is here today the estimated chance of survival around 5%. so i am very fortunate and certainly very happy to be here today to be speaking and testifying before you. our friends in the west often ask how they can be helpful to the cause of human rights and democracy in russia. and the answer to this is very simple. please stay true to your values. we are not asking for your support. it is our task to fight for democracy and rule of law in our country. the only thing we ask from western leaders is that they stop supporting mr. putin by treating him as a respectable and worthy partner, and by allowing mr. putin's cronies to use western countries as havens for their looted wealth. the united states has been a pine nr in putting a stop this

this. nearly four years ago the congress passed the ground-breaking law that for the first time ever introduced personal accountability for human rights abuse and corruption. by prohibitting those who violate the rights of russian citizens and who pill ladge the resources from traveling to the u.s. and using the financial system. i thank you for your leadership on this issue. testifying before this committee in this very room i was here with him on that day. in june 2013 boris called the act, the most pro russian law in the history of any foreign parliament. it is my sincere hope that this law is implemented to its full extent without regard for rank or influence and that these crooks and these abusers get a clear message that they will not be welcomed here and that will be the best possible way to support the cause of human rights in russia. thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you both for your

testimony and certainly i appreciate the personal deep commitment you have and the personal experience. we have a vote. i'm going to turn over to senator cardin for questions and senator cardin i think what i will do is go vote so we can flip that. i want to thank you though. i appreciate your mention of the act and i want to thank senator cardin for his tremendous leadership for years on human rights issues. articularly in causing this to become law. thank you very much. >> let me first thank the chairman for his incredible support in regards to this committee focusing on human rights issues and let me thank you for being here. i know it was a long trip from russia to come and visit. we thank that your wife is here and we are thankful that you are healthy. we know the personal risk that you have taken.

let me just update you first on the men inski global efforts that we are making so that the legislation that we passed aimed towards russia can be ed to help all countries protect the rights of their citizens. and you are absolutely right the moscow document 1990 made it very clear that the commitments to basic human rights are not an internal matter for a country but are legitimate interests of all the members of the osce. so the enforces that by saying that if russia does not take action against the abusers we are not going to give them the benefits of our country as i indicated in my opening statement, we have applied that numerous times in the united states against russians who have violated basic human rights that have not been held accountable by their

government. and we believe it can be further used. today the floor of the united states senate by a unanimous consent all 100 senators once again second time confirmed that the law should be global. so we anticipate by the end of this congress that we will in ct have a global law so that we can take the our experience from russia and use it in other count rifments as you know russia's influence is also in other countries. so that will be helpful. i want to drill down a little bit on your comments about personal safety. it is so important to put faces on issues. e saw that with sergei men its ski allowed us to pass the bill. otherwise, it sort of rolls off the international news stories quickly. but when you put a face to it and recognize what an individual has gone through,

and your personal presence here today makes a huge difference. i thank you for doing that. the elections are september. what type of opportunities do you believe opposition forces will have in russia both directly participating in the elections and then expressing heir views in regards to the parliamentary elections? will there be an opportunity for opposition participation and you indicated that the protests there or the 2011 was pretty embarrassing to russia. what do you anticipate will be done if the russian public believes these elections are not fair and want to express themselves? how will the government respond? >> thank you very much for the question. and thank you also for your efforts. i completely associate myself

with what you said. we know human rights are universal and the responsibility for violating human rights should be universal too. i mentioned we haven't had a free and fair national election in russia in more than 16 years. f we take the gold standard of observations. of course we have no reason to believe that the upcoming parliamentary election on september 18 will be free and fair. in fact, we are seeing the preparations already. new restrictions imposed on election observers, new restrictions imposed on journalists, new restrictions imposed on the campaign itself this new national guard clearly being prepared in event of repeat of mass protests that we saw in december 2011 and early 12i. and there's always this jun going debate whether we should even participate in the rigged and unfair elections. i believe that yes we should. and my colleague believes that

yes we should because we can use even this flawed and manipulated and rigged electoral process in order to help get our message across, get through that wall of propaganda and lies that have been built up by the regime. also i think very importantly to help this young generation of pro democracy and civil society activists in our country to go through that process and gain the political experience that they will need in the future because there will come when russia will have a free and fair elks. we have to start preparing now. so the open russian movement which i have the honor of representing will be supporting candidates and individuals for the state duma across the country. it is a wide geography from st. petersburg and i am now going around the country in different regioning and taking part in the campaign events. i was in st. petersburg a couple weeks ago. i am seeing how effective and necessary and important that

is. i thinkt's also important to mention that we have this opportunity to participate in this election this year. thanks to boris anymore soff because two-and-a-half years ago in 2013 he won the legislative seat in a region where according to russian law a party that is represented in at least one of the regional legislatures in russia does not need to collect signatures in order to have access to the ballot and the putin regime usually uses the signatures as a filt tore get unwanted candidates off the ballot. so because we have that opportunity the people's freedom party has this opportunity. we will be on the ballot. our candidates will be on the blalt this september. i think it is also it will be very important for our partners including the united states to pay attention to what will be going on to pay attention to the potential fraud, to send a robust monitoring mission as much as possible and i know there will be a parliamentary session coming up.

i think it will be very important to raise that issue. there should be robust observation of the election this september. and if there are cases of fraud they should be publicized, talked about, paid attention to because i think the only thing this regime is afraid of is public reaction to russia. we saw how afraid they were to the mass protests in 2011-2012 and i think we should the whole world should be watching closely as the september election approaches especially as we both mentioned today election status and human rights are not an internal affair. >> they will be leading a delegation in july. i will make sure that the russian election is part of our priorities for those discussions. and yes we will participate within the osce on the monitoring and we will make sure that we report accurately what happens in russia.

we are concerned, though, that knowing what happened in the previous election that there could be some personal safety issues associated with participation in this election. do you have that concern? >> well, as you know i've had some reasons to be worried about personal safety. i know many of my colleagues also face this risk on a daily basis. ut i think those of us who are activists, leaders, public faces of the democratic opposition in russia we've known for a long time that it's a dangerous location to be in opposition to mr. putin's regime. but we have accepted that. we think frankly that our country has no future under this regime. that this regime is drawing our country into a dead end. if we want to fight for our country's future we have to accept those risks and i think there's nothing better this regime would like us to do than to give up and run away. i don't think we should be

giving them that pleasure. >> you raised a very almost frightening point that russia uses war for its domestic agenda more than than -- not necessarily the importance of the battle itself but the political significance or how it distracts from other issues. do you anticipate that we might see more military action by russia to further its overall objectives not so much the specific area where the military operations take place but to further their domestic support for their broader goals? >> that's the key determine nant. and that is the most important thing for the united states to keep in mind in anticipating possible russian aggression that what motivate the russian authorities is not the desire to rebuild the soviet empire. they're actually i think

indifferent to that. what they go to war to strengthen the hold on power of the small clepto craptic group which monopolizes the instruments of power and property in the country. if they feel threatened and they understand that the best way to consolidate their hold on power is to find a pretext for military aggression, they will look for it. and that is why deterrence is so important. but not only deterrence in military terms. but psychological deterrence. something which is very much neglect bid the united states. because we with great difficulty understand the cultural context in russia and the psychological context, hat's really going on there. all of the good will that we show -- i was struck bay statement of secretary kerry

recently resently when he said about the minister that he lied to me to my face. and i was taken aback by that remark because i was surprised that kerry expected any different. indispensible background to policy decisions and awareness of the people with whom you're having -- with whom you're dealing. and this i think is what's missing. this is what has to be reinforced. this can also be an important element and deterrence. >> thank you for that answer. we will stay in brief recess until the chairman returns so that i can vote on the amendment that's pending on the floor of the senate. the committee will stay in brief recess.

>> i know you had five minutes for comments and i very much appreciate your reference to

the mag anything ski agreement or act. i wonder if there's anything else from a personal standpoint you would like to share with us why u you are here. you heard the first two witnesses. from a professional standpoint. are there things that i know there were numbers of questions from committee members about thing that is we could be doing that we are not. other observations that the two of you would have relative to additional pressure on russia relative to what is happening internally? which is what most of your focus is here today. i know you didn't ask for help. hey i i heard that. i know you said remain true to our values. are there additional activities we can be involved in? >> thank you for the question. also thank you for your leadership on the act which has been marked up by the committee and also for the senate resolution number 78 which was

dedicated to the memory of boris and which is one of its points. the u.s. government raising this question and the progress or the lack thereof in the investigation. every time they meet with the russian government. that's very important. thank you for this. on your question, i think first it is very important to distinguish and sometimes even informed commentators make this mistake they make the shorthand meaning russia when they mean the putin regime. for me as a russian citizens that is a pretty important difference. i think these things should not be confused with each other. the current rescombreem of course is not the product of a democratic election, not the product of the free world or the russian people. i think it's important to bear this in mind. on the question of what could be done, i think frankly a more robust and more active implementation of the act is

the single most important thing that was mentiond in this regard. of course, this act targets not just those implicated in the case itself but section 4 b of the act wideance its scope to other gross human rights abuses. and there's been i think if i am not mistaken, 39 people added to the list since the law came into force. but most of them have been low or mid-level human rights abusers. of course they should be on the list, too. but as i mentioned i think it is very important not to have any glass ceilings in terms of rank and influence. >> from your perspective why do you think it's been mostly targeted towards low-level individuals? >> well, it's not for me to comment on the motivations behind the u.s. administration's actions. i'm not an american. i'm a foreigner. and -- >> from your perspective. >> i do understand that there are rigid criteria built into

the law itself. so there has to be clear evidence. but i think there frankly is clear evidence about very high profile and high-ranking human rights abusers within the crem lip regime. there have been media reports here in the u.s. that for instance cad ira whom i mentioned and the head of the investigative committee have both been put on the classified part of the act. frankly, i think in my personal view the most important aspect of this act is the public naming and shaming of human rights abusers. i see no reason why these individuals should not be placed on the open list. in early 2014, when mr. enemy soff came here for the last time he had several immediatings here in both houses and parties he suggested several names of high profile human rights abusers could be added. one of those was general bass tricken the other was mr. chur of now head of the election commission who was responsible

for covering up the mass fraud in 2011 and 2012 electoral cycle and earlier as well. i believe there were 30 names that he suggested be put on the list. and so far not a single one has been put on the list. a year ago former russian prime minister and i came here and also had several meetings here on the hill and we suggest that had the names of kremlin propaganda officials who call themselves journalist whose are not, they're state officials involved in state-sponsored incitement against those who oppose putin's regime. we suggest those who called him a foreign agent, enemy of russia who said that he is finance bid the u.s. or said he would welcome nazi troops. i'm not making this up. these are direct quotes. these people should also be put on the sanction list. so far not one of those have been put on the sanctions list. so i really think that the most

effective and most principled and honest way to deal with those human rights abusers is to place them on that sanctions list. the unique thing and the ground-breaking thing about the act was that it was not sanctioning a country. they're not sanctions against russia. not even sanctions against russian government. these are sanctions against specific individuals personally involved in human rights abuse and personally ip volved in corruption. and i think this is the way it should be done. >> when somebody is placed on the list, is it truly a significant punishment to them to be sanctioned in that manner? >> this is a very important question. we can talk about many similarities that exist between the soviet regime and what we have in our country today. we have political prisoners, media censorship, the lack of free and fair elections. but for all these similarities there's also one very important difference. and that is that members of the soviet bureau did not hold

their bank accounts in the west. they did not send their kids to study in the west. they didn't buy real estate in the west. leaders of the current regime and kremlin olgarts do that and i think there's a double standard hypocracy. we know from experience that when high ranking abusers are placed on that list it has a strong effect. in 2007 when there was this whole controversy about the relocation of a soviet war memorial in astonia members of the nashi, a pro kremlin youth group engaged in a campaign against the ambassador. they were following her everywhere trying to sabotage her press conferences throwing things at her and shouth abuse. so the astonian government decided to impose visa sanctions on the then serving minister in mr. putin's government. he was the de facto leader of this group.

he was placed on a visa ban list. this ban had a wide force so he could not travel to any country which is most of the european union. so for nine years he has been desperately trying to get himself off that visa black list. and for all those nine years for all the other transgressions and all the other transgressions happening in our country there hasn't been a single case against a hair asment and i think this is what we need to know about the effectiveness of these types of personal targeted measures geens these abusers. >> do you want to add anything to it? i think the future of russia depends -- i've been involved with russia for many years. and have thought a great deal about it. the first priority, the danger of participating in elections which the regime controls,

although i'm not opposed to it, is that it gives legitimacy to the regime and actually under controlled circumstances gives the impression to the population that what's taking place is a real democratic process. this is the same dilemma that people face, for example, i faced at one time when i was receiving invitations to appear on russian television, that i did not want to take part in a performance that in fact was not honest and did not conform to normal ethical rules. i think, but there is some value in taking part in these elections as long as those who do so don't nurture illusions that this can change the regime. it can't. that is a process that is controlled by the regime. the regime will be changed in other ways. most important in my view requirement for russia's future

is something a russian equivalent of the south african commission on truth and reconciliation. the 25 years of post communist history are not well understood. unfortunately, the abuses began not with putin. putin is the hand-picked successor of boris yeltsin. they began with yeltsin and the crimes began with yeltsin. they began with the massacre at the television tower in 1993 and the shelling of the russian parliament. the carpet bombing in 1995 in which it is estimated 20,000 people were killed almost all of them civilians. now it appears that the 1996 elections in which yeltsin was quote/unquote reelected were falsfid. and most important of all the

circumstances under which putin became the new russian president, he became the president in the aftermaths of the bombing of four apartment buildings in russia that terrified the entire country galvenized support for a new and even more bloody war in chechnya and created the conditions for putin who had a 2% approval rating in the country to become the national savior and the country's new president. when he took over as president, he brought with him his kgb, fsb entourage and they proceeded to eliminate what was left of the freedoms that had been tolerated under yeltsin. the precondition for putin's coming to power was the criminalization of russia under yeltsin. because only a provocation like

the apartment bombings could save such a clepto craptic regime as the one that was put in place by yeltsin. under condition of formal democracy. this group that's now in power will do anything to hold on to power. but one of the most important instruments at their dizz posele is the ability to confuse the population about the population -- about the people's true interests and their true history. so the first requirement for russia's resurrection in my of the to clarify all historicle episodes. the apartment bombings, the nord of course theater seige, the besslam school massacre in 2004 in which children and parents in a gymnasium who were held hostage by chechen

terrorists were attacked by russian troops with flame throwers and grenade launchers and burned alive. and of course the wars in georgia and ukraine. only on the basis of a truthful understanding of the country's history will it be possible to change the psychological state of the country making it realistic to create a genuinely law-based system. and once that psychological and ethical basis exists, it is important for russia to have what it lost in 1918, when the bol she vicks disbursed the constituents assembly. a new constituent assembly in order to create a real constitution not the constitution that was created in the wake of the destruction of the russian parliament in 993 in order to suit the power

requirements of yeltsin. under those circumstances, and with the understanding that those parts of the russian federation including the caucuses that wish to detach themselves and have an independent national existence be given the right to do so, the conditions will then exist for russia to transform itself into a democratic country. it must be pointed out that as a result of 25 years of post communist history russia -- that russia has acquired an educated sophisticated worldly middle class for which this type of regime is absolutely inappropriate. and that process is going to continue as globalization continues, and as people take advantage of the exposure to free information which was denied them under the soviet

regime. >> we thank you both for being here. we will have a number of questions i know coming from people who weren't able to be here for the second panel and we will try to have all those in by the close of business on thursday. if you all could respond fairly quickly to those. we know you don't have the same staff that the previous two witnesses had. but we thank you for the light you have shed here today for your personal experiences for your help. we look forward to having you back again in the near future. with that the committee is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org

>> the house continues work this week on federal spending. much of the focus on defense department spending. the first appropriations bill to come up under new house rules by the republican leadership that limit the number of amendments. the first thing today they consider two bills. one would improve the release of government information and the other combats the trafficking of human organs. the senate has a bill on its agenda today. a final vote expected tuesday. he senate is live on c-span 2.

>> the proceedings are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time. not that we have operated in secret until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed senate debates during their visits to washington. but today they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. >> in effect the senate floor has been a kind of a stage.

senators have been acting on that stage. the audiences in the galleries. and by our action today we haven't really fundamentally altered that situation. we've simply enlarged the galleries. we have pushed out the walls to include all of the american people who wish to watch. >> commemorating 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span 2.

our bus also made a stop at wide row wilson high school in washington, d.c.. a special thank you to our cable company, comcast cable for helping to coordinate this. announcer: coming up next, "q&a" with simon sebag montefiore. then, and 7:00, we open our phone lines and get your reaction to yesterday's shooting in orlando, florida.